Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions > [OCA IPI No. 07-23-SCC : March 05, 2007] IBNOHAJAR A. PUNTUKAN V. HON. AMIR HASAN MUSTAFA, PRESIDING JUDGE, 1ST SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, JOLO, SULU :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 05 MARCH 2007

OCA IPI No. 07-23-SCC - (Ibnohajar A. Puntukan v. Hon. Amir Hasan Mustafa, Presiding Judge, 1st Shari'a Circuit Court, Jolo, Sulu)

RESOLUTION

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

LETTER dated 03 April 2006 of complainant Mr. Ibnohajar A. Puntukan (Interpreter) addressed to the Chief, Leave Division, this Office. In said letter, Puntukan complains that, their office is "mismanaged/misguided" for the employees therein are not observing the prescribed office hours. According to him, when herein respondent (Judge Mustafa) and their Branch Clerk are on leave, all official transactions completely stop. Every time a client-litigant inquires about something, Mrs. Hadjibun, the court stenographer, will just tell that person that nobody can attend to his queries/needs because both are on leave.

Complainant claims that on 08 March 2006 he was not able to punch in/out his time card in the bundy clock machine because their court was closed that day and the rest of the staff were not around on the belief that said day was a holiday, which he claims was not. Complainant likewise complains that on 31 March 2006 (a Friday), he arrived at the office five (5)-minutes before 1:00 o'clock p.m. after attending the weekly congregational prayer for Muslims but was not able to go in yet because their office was still closed. Complainant disclosed that this is not the first time in the afternoons and that the persons in-charge of the same is around.

Complainant further alleges that respondent judge and their branch clerk were absent for more than two (2) weeks hence, official transactions were accordingly "suspended" during that time.

Complainant likewise adds that some of his co-employees take turns with each other in punching in/out their time cards. This practice has been going on for quite some time with the knowledge of respondent judge and their branch clerk who watched with passive tolerance. Complainant assures the court that he will divulge more illegal practice done by respondents if the Court would conduct an investigation.

COMMENT dated 12 July 2006 of respondent judge belying the accusations hurled against him by complainant.

Respondent narrates that on the said 08 march 2006, he arrived at the court a few minutes before 8 o'clock a.m. Complainant was already inside the court, as well as Mrs. Hadda H. Hadjibun, Stenographer; Mrs. Hazelmanda u. Tulawie, Stenographer, and Mr. Madhab B. Sarip, Clerk

II. According to respondent, a few minutes later someone informed them that it was holiday in the observance of the 1^st Centennial Commemoration of the Bud Dahu Battle. Then a military man came to register his conversion with the court. After verifying from some court personnel at the Hall of Justice that it was indeed a holiday, respondent went home while complainant, Mrs. Hadjibun, Mrs. Tulawie and Mr. Sarip remained in the office. Respondent claims that whenever he or the Branch Clerk attends a seminar, he usually designates Mrs. Hadda H. Hadjibun (Stenographer) as the OIC Clerk of Court. However, Mrs. Hadjibun cannot prepare the complaint of a walk-in client but can only accept prepared complaints and petitions. Respondent discloses that he was on leave during the last week of March 2006 up to the first week of April 2006 because he went to Manila to follow up the papers of his compulsory retirement. A Certificate of Appearance from the OCA was issued to him on 03 April 2006. As to the allegation of complainant that some employees connive with each other and take turns in punching in/out of their time cards, respondent denies having knowledge of the same nor having tolerated said practice.

According to respondent, the reason why complainant, sent the instant false and fabricated letter is because of his desire to deter or prejudice the former's retirement knowing that he is due to retire on 12 August 2006. Complainant harbored ill-will against respondent when he did not get the appointment as Clerk of Court but Mrs. Iluminada A. Arabani whose application for transfer to his court as Clerk of Court was the one considered by the Supreme Court. Since, then complainant bore a personal grudge against him. Sending the instant letter is part of his design to take revenge against respondent and as a matter of fact, complainant once sent him a malicious letter clearly showing his hatred against respondent.

Meanwhile, in said letter dated 01 February 1999 addressed to the respondent judge, complainant gravely insulted and indirectly called the latter "evil", gluttonous", "filthy" and "piggish". In fact, complainant, in another sheet of paper, made a drawing of respondent and the Branch Clerk of Court in a symbolic fashion of a dog depicting what complainant insinuates as, oppression and dictatorship practice by Judge Mustafa.

EVALUATION: Respondent judge has compulsorily retired last 12 August 2006. As a rule, the retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. However in the instant case, we find the charges hurled by complainant as unfounded and too general to be taken seriously. His charges against respondent's alleged practice of "condoning and tolerating" illegal office practices of some court employees were not substantiated. While complainants should not be discouraged from ventilating their grievances against judges, the charge should not also be baseless or utterly devoid of corroborating evidence only for purposes of harassing members of the bench. For a judge regards as sacred his integrity and reputation and could only hope to be the only legacy he could leave his children (Evaristo Marahon v. Judge Alvin Tan, 17 November 1999).

It is settled that in administrative case, the complainant has the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Hence, it is but proper and judicious that the instant complaint against respondent judge be dismissed for want of concrete and competent evidence to support the same.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against respondent (ret.) Judge Amir Hasan Mustafa, Presiding Judge, 1^st SCC, Jolo, Sulu be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. At the same time, however, the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. This Court could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.^[1]

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Amir Hasan Mustafa is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Planas v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905, February 23, 2005,452 SCRA 146, 161.