ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[OCA IPI No. 99-847-RTJ.February 5, 2001]

FERDINAND B. MASI vs. JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.

OCA IPI No. 99-847-RTJ(Ferdinand B. Masi v. Judge Jaime F. Bautista, RTC, Branch 75, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila.)

This is a complaint against respondent Judge Jaime F. Bautista of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Valenzuela City for grave misconduct, graft and corruption, and gross ignorance of the law, arising from his handling of Criminal Case No. 4791-V-95, entitled, "People v. Laurencio Santos y Ferrer and Elias Maestre y Cabulay," for qualified theft.

Complainant Ferdinand Masi, general manager of Consolidated Distillers of the Far East, Inc. (CONDIS), which filed the complaint in Criminal Case No. 4791-V-95, claims that after trying the case, respondent prepared a draft decision convicting the accused, to be promulgated on April 13, 1998. However, allegedly to favor a certain Carlos Quiroga, respondent transferred the promulgation to May 15, 1998 and rendered a decision acquitting the accused. To prove his claim, complainant Cites the order issued by respondent on April 13, 1998 which states: "Let the promulgation of this case be hereby reset to May 15, 1998 at 8:30 a.m." According to complainant, respondent caused said order to be mailed to CONDIS only on June 6, 1998, after the decision had been promulgated , with the result that CONDIS' motion for reconsideration was denied for having been filed late.

Respondent judge denied the allegations against him, He denied he prepared two decisions and that he re-set the promulgation of the decision. He claims that he only issued one order, dated April 13, 1998, setting the promulgation of the decision on May 15, 1998. He claims that his decision is in accordance with the facts of the case and the applicable law. As for the late service of the April 13, 1998 order to CONDIS, respondent disclaims responsibility for the same. He adds that the public prosecutor was in fact present at the promulgation of the decision on May 15, 1998.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. It points Out that although the April 13, 1998 order stated that the promulgation of the decision was being "reset" on May 15, 1998 at 8:30 a.m., in reality there was no other date on which the promulgation had been set and the use of the word "reset" was a mere typographical error.

The recommendation is well taken. Administrative complaints are accusatorial in nature, hence they must be supported by proof of respondent's culpability (Cutaran v. Villanueva, 89 SCRA 475(1979)).Such evidence must be solid, clear, and convincing. Administrative charges based on mere suspicion, surmises, or inferences cannot be countenanced.

In this case, complainant failed to substantiate by credible proof the charges he has brought against respondent and thus overcome the presumption that the latter performed his official duties regularly. As for the late service of the April 13, 1998 order to CONDIS, suffice it to say that the public prosecutor, who had control and supervision over the case, did not see fit to question the regularity of the promulgation of the decision on May 15, 1998.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Jaime F. Bautista of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Valenzuela City, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com