Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions > [OCA IPI No. 08-2085-MTJ : December 08, 2008] RE: HADJI KAMALUDDIN GUMBAHALI V. JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL HIZON ALANO, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, AND MR. ABDEL AZIZ T. AMILBANGSAI CLERK OF COURT, BOTH OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BONGAO-LANGUYAN, TAWI-TAWI :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 December 2008:

OCA IPI No. 08-2085-MTJ - (Re: Hadji Kamaluddin Gumbahali v. Judge Juan Gabriel Hizon Alano, Acting Presiding Judge, and Mr. Abdel Aziz T. AmilbangsaI Clerk of Court, both of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bongao-Languyan, Tawi-Tawi)


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

In the Complaint dated July 28, 2007 and August 1, 2007, Hadji Kamaluddin Gumbahali averred that in the July 15, 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Kabataan Barangay Elections, he ran for Barangay Chairman in Barangay Lato-Lato and won by obtaining 39 votes over Saira P. Esmael and Punzalan Alimuddin who obtained 33 and 31 votes, respectively.

According to the complainant, Esmael, :in conspiracy with respondent Clerk of Court Abdel Aziz T. Amilbangsa and the latter's brother Atty. Aysar T. Amilbangsa, filed a protest case before the MCTC, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi. Complainant averred that in the judicial recounting of ballots; the second ballot box contained ballots only and there were no minutes of voting, list of voters, election returns and all other documents suppose to be inside the ballot box. Despite the persistent objection of complainant's lawyer, respondent judge ordered the recounting of the ballots. He claimed that through the manipulation of respondent Amilbangsa, Saira obtained 39 votes, complainant 33 and Alimuddin 29.

Complainant claimed that respondent judge tolerated that manipulation in the recounting of ballots. He added that when he filed an appeal before the Commission on Elections in Manila, respondent clerk of court did not assist him in correctly paying the appeal fee. For non�payment of the correct fees, the appeal was dismissed.

In his Comment dated October 25, 2007, respondent judge related that Election Protest Number NL-02 entitled "Saira Panji Esmael vs. Kamaluddin Gumbahali " was filed before the 5^th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi. On July 29, 2002, complainant filed his Answer with Affirmative Defenses. On January 28, 2003, then Acting Presiding Judge Guilljie Delfin-Lim issued and Omnibus Order directing the revision of the ballots and designating a Committee on Revision.

Meanwhile, respondent judge was designated as acting presiding judge of all first level courts of Tawi-Tawi Province pursuant to A.O. 85-2004 dated May 27, 2004. On November 22, 2004, the revision of ballots was finally conducted. The judge pointed out that respondent clerk of court did not took [sic] part in the revision of ballots because he is related with complainant herein.  On November 24, 2004, complainant filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order with the COMELEC. On May 10, 2005, the COMELEC issued a resolution dismissing complainant's petition.  Thereafter, on August 29, 2006  the trial court rendered a decision where the proclamation of the complainant as Barangay Chairman of Barangay Lato-Lato, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, was annulled and set aside.

Respondent judge averred that on September 25, 2006, complainant elevated the decision to the COMELEC on appeal. On February 17, 2007, the COMELEC dismissed the appeal due to non�payment of correct appeal fee. Similarly, complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied by the COMELEC stressing that complainant "was given all the opportunities from November 21, 2006 to January 25, 2007  to pay the appeal fees, yet no payment was ever made." Undaunted, complainant filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the Supreme Court.  In the Court's resolution of July 10, 2007, said petition was dismissed.  Complainant's  motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed.

Respondent judge pointed out that it was only in the motion of reconsideration to the resolution dismissing the petition that the existence of the conspiracy between respondent clerk of court and Atty. Amilbangsa was alleged for the first time by the complainant The judge pointed out that- said motion for reconsideration was anchored mainly on the instant letter-complaint.

EVALUATION: The instant administrative charge against the respondent judge is anchored on the alleged erroneous recounting of the second ballot box in Election Protest No. BL-02. This issue is judicial in nature and arose from the respondent's exercise of his judicial functions. It has been held that the acts of a judge which pertains to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable for no one tried to call upon the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. (Spouses Florencio and Esther Causin vs. Judge Leonardo Demecillo, etc., AM. No. RTJ-04-1860, September 8, 2004.)

Besides, no less than the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated May 10, 2005 in SPR No. 58-2004 dismissed the petition for prohibition filed by the complainant and ordered the respondent judge to proceed with the determination of the identity and integrity of the second ballot box and revision of ballots found therein if the integrity of the ballot box is found to be uncompromised.

Other than his bare allegations, complainant failed to prove that both the respondents were guilty of manipulation in the revision of the ballot. The established rule in administrative proceedings is that the burden of proof that respondents committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. Administrative charges against members of the judiciary, or personnel of the court, for that matter, must be supported at least by substantial evidence. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. (Alcaraz v. Lindo, AM. No. MTJ-04 1539, November 26, 2004, 444 SCRA 393) In the instant case, complainant failed to overcome this burden.

While this Office is yet to receive respondent clerk of court's comment to the complaint, we opt to dispense with it because it would serve no other purpose. It must be pointed out that respondent clerk of court was not a member of the Committee on Revision of Ballots and he took part in the proceedings of the election protest case. As appellant in UNDK No. 02-2006 entitled "Saira Panji Esmael vs. Kamaluddin Gumhahali, " before the COMELEC, complainant is primarily responsible for the payment of the correct appeal fee. Complainant can not be allowed to blame the respondent clerk of court for his own fault.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that the instant complaint against Judge Juan Gabriel Hizon Alano and Clerk of Court Abdel Aziz T. Amilbangsa, 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.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Juan Gabriel Hizon Alano, Acting Presiding Judge, and Mr. Abdel Aziz T. Amilbangsa, Clerk of Court, both of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bongao-Languyan, Tawi-Tawi is DISMISSED,

SO ORDERED.