Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > January 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1775-MTJ : January 15, 2007] P/C INSP. MENANDRO P. HAYAG V. JUDGE EUSTAQUIO C. LAGRIMAS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, PALAPAG, NORTHERN SAMAR :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 15 JANUARY 2007


A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1775-MTJ (P/C Insp. Menandro P. Hayag v. Judge Eustaquio C. Lagrimas, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Palapag, Northern Samar). - This administrative matter arose from the verified Letter-Complaint^[1] filed by Police Chief Inspector Menandro P. Hayag charging Judge Eustaquio C. Lagrimas with gross misconduct.

The complainant narrated that on June 5, 2005, he led the operations of the Northern Samar Police Provincial Office Anti-Illegal Gambling Special Operation Task Force at Sitio Cale, Barangay Magsaysay, Palapag, Northern Samar. There had been a report that a "dos manor alfor" (a game similar to cara y cruz) and card games know as monte and illegal cockfighting were being held in the place. Complainant alleged that he was surprised to find that it was respondent Judge Lagrimas who was the "promoter of said illegal cockfighting." He further alleged that "about ninety percent (90%) of the illegal cockfights in the municipality of Palapag and nearby towns during barangay fiestas are 'pacquiao'/monopoly of Judge Lagrimas despite his knowledge, as he is a Judge, that cockfighting outside a licensed cockpit arena is illegal."

The complainant further alleged that

3. The same Judge and his wife actively finance the operation of Lotto Suertes (Illegal Numbers Game based on the Result of the Lotto) operating in the municipalities of Gamay, Lapinig, Mapanas and Palapag. In the recent raid by this Office last 21 September 2005 at more or less 8:00 in the evening in Brgy. Tinampo, Poblacion Palapag, N/Samar, accused Dan Apolonio y Laureano and Gabriel Tobes y Tubello confessed to the undersigned that their financier are the Spouses Judge Lagrimas and his wife and that they were just fronts of the two. Of course, the Spouses Lagrimas cannot be indicted now because such confessions of the two accused are inadmissible in evidence. They are also afraid so they refuse to testify against Judge Lagrimas and his wife. Attached are the Complaint (Tab "G"), and Joint Affidavit (Tab "H") and Search Warrant Nr 24 (Tab "I") forming parts of the case filed against the accused.^[2]
   

To support his allegations, the complainant attached a picture of respondent Judge taken during the operations, signed by one of the police officers. The complainant further alleged that he and his men refrained from instituting the criminal action against the participants of illegal cockfighting because the case would be filed in the sala of respondent Judge himself.

In his Comment, respondent Judge vehemently denied the charges against him. He maintains that he is not a "promoter" of illegal cockfighting; in fact, Section 8(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 449 (otherwise known as the Cockfighting Law of 1974), no mention is made of "promoter" as one of the offenders therein.

Respondent judge recalled that on June 5, 2005, he went to Barangay Magsaysay to grace the barangay fiesta. While he and some acquaintances were being served with some snacks and liquor in a make-shift shelter at the back of a sari-sari store fronting the highway, there was a commotion. He rushed to the highway and saw people scampering in different directions. Respondent Judge explained that it was out of curiosity that he went to the place, about 30 meters away. He was unable to put on his polo shirt. While he admitted that he was in the photograph attached to the complaint, he claimed that he did not recognize the others in the picture. He was also certain that the picture was taken after the "raid" which disrupted the cockfighting, now the subject of Criminal Case No. 2005-11 for violation of paragraph (a)(1), Section 1 of P.D. No. 1602. Respondent judge further explained:

The allegation that the police investigators did not file a case for illegal cockfighting under the pretext that respondent is the Acting Presiding Judge of Palapag is flimsy and preposterous a reason. Complainant can easily file a petition to inhibit respondent from presiding. Why complainant did not file the corresponding complaint -respondent has no personal knowledge.

All told, in all proceedings, be it criminal, civil or administrative, it is axiomatic that the burden of proof is always on the complainant. Mere allegation that respondent is a "promoter" of the alleged illegal cockfighting and other malicious allegations in the charge are NO proofs at all. Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The complainant must present substantial evidence in support of such accusations. Elementary is the rule, that he who alleges must prove his allegations. In this regard, complainant failed to do so. x x x^[3]

On March 22, 2006, the Court resolved to refer the instant matter to Executive Judge Jose F. Falcotelo, Regional Trial Court, Northern Samar for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Executive Judge submitted his Report on November 14, 2006. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence, due to complainant's repeated failure to appear during the scheduled hearings, "an eloquent manifestation of his lack of interest to prosecute this case against the respondent." The Executive Judge narrated, thus:

2. On June 28, 2006 x x x, I set the initial hearing on July 5, 12 and 19, 2006 all at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon and notices of hearing were sent on even date to x x x the complainant, and x x x the respondent. (p. 71-records)
   
   
3. On July 5, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the date of the initial hearing, only the respondent appeared while the complainant did not. Without respondent's objection the hearing was postponed and reset to July 12 and 19, 2006 as [previously] scheduled. (Order, p. 72-records)
   
   
4. On July 12, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon both x x x the complainant and x x x the respondent appeared. The respondent appeared with Atty. Edsel A. Ballicud, his counsel, while complainant appeared without counsel. As complainant desired to be assisted by a counsel, Atty. Ballicud offered no objection to a resetting and both agreed on July 27, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. (Order, p. 73-records)
   
   
5. On July 27, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, I denied the oral motion of Atty. Ballicud for the dismissal of the case when complainant failed to appear on the same date of hearing [previously] agreed upon by them. Giving the complainant the last chance to present his evidence, the hearing was postponed and reset to August 11, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. (Order on page 75-records)
   
   
6. On August 11, 2006 at past 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon despite receipt of the notice of hearing/order on July 27, 2006 (return card at the reverse side of the Order on page 75-records) complainant failed to appear again and over the vigorous objection of Atty. Ballicud, the hearing was nevertheless postponed with strong warning to complainant and reset to September 12, 2006 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon (Order on page 75 records)
   
   
7. On September 12, 2006 at past 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, despite receipt of the notice/order dated August 11, 2006 (return card at the reverse side of the Order on page 78-records) complainant failed to appear and upon motion of Atty. Ballicud, I ordered [the] termination of the investigation/hearing x x x.
   

The Court agrees that the charges against respondent Judge should be dismissed for lack of evidence.

It is settled that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on the complainant,^[4] who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.^[5] Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.^[6]

Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against court personnel, it is also our duty to protect and exonerate them from baseless administrative charges.^[7]

Respondent Judge should be reminded, however, to be more mindful of the places which he will choose to frequent. Canon 3, paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics provides that "a judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach."^[8] A magistrate's "judicial identity" does not terminate at the end of the day when he takes off his judicial robes. Even when garbed in casual wear outside the halls of justice, a judge retains the air of authority and moral ascendancy that he or she wields inside the sala.^[9]

Being the visible personification of law and of justice, a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.^[10]

The Court resolves to DISMISS the administrative charges against Judge Eustaquio C. Lagrimas for lack of merit. He is reminded, however, to be more mindful of his conduct outside his sala.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.

^[2] Id. at 2.

^[3] Id. at 31.

^[4] Cortes v. Agcaoili, 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza, 254 SCRA 278, 284 (1996).

^[5] Sierra v. Tiamson, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1847, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 560,563.

^[6] See Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).

^[7] Cruz v. Iturralde, 450 Phil. 77, 88 (2003), at note 3, citing Sarmiento v. Salamat, 416 Phil. 684 (2001).

^[8] In City Government of Tagbilaran v. Judge Hontanosas, Jr. (425 Phil. 592, 601 [2002]), respondent judge was held administratively liable for going to cockpits and placing bets in cockfights. The Court also held that "the fact that the cockpits where he used to go were licensed and the cockfights were conducted on authorized days will not absolve [respondent]. The Court also noted that "it is plainly despicable to see a judge inside a cockpit."

^[9] Decena v. Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1669, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 153, 163.

^[10] Cua Shuk Yin v. Perello, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1961, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 472, 478-479.