ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-00-1434.February 6, 2002]
JUDGE YANEZA vs. DIONISIA VILLAFLOR-LAZATIN
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 06 FEB 2002.
A.M. No. P-00-1434(Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza, Complainant, vs. Dionisia Villaflor-Lazatin, Cash Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, Respondent.)
On February 8, 1999, Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza (Judge Yaneza), [1] cralaw Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator a sworn complaint [2] cralaw accusing Mrs. Dionisia Villaflor-Lazatin (Lazatin), Cash Clerk III, MeTC, Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, of grave misconduct and conduct inimical to the best interest of the service, without prejudice to her prosecution for violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. A. No. 3019, as amended), and violation of Rule X, Section 1, Paragraphs (a) and (h), Rules in the Implementation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R. A. No. 6713).
The complaint alleged that Lazatin showed an unusual interest in Civil Cases Nos. 3698 to 3709 (Laiz ejectment cases).According to complainant, Lazatin and her sister went to his office in the afternoon of February 1, 1999, confronted him and menacingly accused him of keeping the records of the cases. The sister even threatened to file a complaint against complainant judge.
The complaint further alleged that the substantial delay in the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the ejectment cases was due to the meddling of Lazatin who had close relations with Sheriff Archimedes D. Almeida, Jr. who was charged with the enforcement of the writ.
On April 23, 1999, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo referred the sworn complaint to Lazatin for her answer. [3] cralaw On May 20, 1999, Lazatin filed an answer [4] cralaw wherein she denied the allegations in the complaint.
On October 25, 2000, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Benjamin Aquino, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Malabon, Metro Manila [5] cralaw for investigation, report and recommendation.
On January 15, 2001, before the investigation could be finished, Judge Yaneza moved for the disqualification of Executive Judge Benjamin Aquino, Jr. on the ground that the latter had a part in Judge Yaneza's ouster as judge in A. M. MTJ-99-1175. [6] cralaw
On February 12, 2001, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Bayani S. Rivera, Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City, for investigation, report and recommendation. [7] cralaw
On May 15, 2001, after reception of the evidence for the parties, Executive Judge Rivera submitted his report and recommendation [8] cralaw to the Office of the Court Administrator.On May 18, 2001, Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o forwarded the report to the Court. [9] cralaw
The report contained the following findings and conclusions:
"It is respectfully submitted that this administrative complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons:
"1. The complainant himself freely and voluntarily withdrew the charge; and
"2. Even if the complaint was not withdrawn, still it has no leg to stand on.Complainant's testimony was that on February 1, 1999, respondent and her sister confronted and asked him in a 'menacing' and 'threatening' manner for the records of the ejectment case wherein respondent's father was a co-party.Such testimony lacks precision and is bereft of any vigor.Complainant did not say why he considered respondent's and her sister's approach to be 'menacing' and 'threatening'.The elementary principle in the rules of evidence is that an affirmative allegation made by a party must be duly proved to merit acceptance (People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192).While it is true that a positive testimony prevails over a negative assertion, the positive testimony must be credible (People v. Gastador, 305 SCRA 659).
"In the instant case, complainant's barefaced testimony is vague, general and unspecified.Consequently, the complaint is not duly proved and without credence.
"xxx����� xxx����� xxx" [10] cralaw
We agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge.
As the complainant in this administrative complaint, Judge Yaneza had the burden of proving the charges against respondent Lazatin.As this Court has held, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence. [11] cralaw An administrative charge cannot be based on conjecture.There must be clear, solid and convincing proof to warrant the exercise of the Court's disciplinary power over the respondent.
The burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. [12] cralaw Judge Yaneza failed to discharge this burden.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial.The court may also consider the number of witness, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. [13] cralaw
In this case, no evidence was presented to prove the allegations in the complaint aside from complainant's testimony.In fact, during the hearing, complainant manifested that he was withdrawing the administrative complaint against Lazatin, and requested that complainant's testimony and other documentary evidence be expunged from the record. [14] cralaw
On the other hand, respondent Lazatin had other witnesses ready to corroborate her testimony that the allegations in the complaint are unfounded.A witness for Lazatin was supposed to be presented during the May 3, 2001 hearing, but this did not happen since the complainant manifested the withdrawal of the complaint before the witness could be presented. [15] cralaw
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the administrative complaint against Mrs. Dionisia Villaflor-Lazatin is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw In A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175 (March 9, 1999), the Court found Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza guilty of grave abuse of authority and ordered him dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government or any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies including government-owned and controlled corporations.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-6. On October 25, 2000, the case was docketed as a regular administrative matter (Rollo, p. 56).
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 30.
[4] cralaw Rollo, pp. 32-28.
[5] cralaw Rollo , p. 56
[6] cralaw Rollo, pp. 70-73.
[7] cralaw Rollo , p. 74.
[8] cralaw Rollo , pp. 302-306.
[9] cralaw Rollo, p. 301.
[10] cralaw Rollo , pp. 302-306, at pp. 305-306.
[11] cralaw Luxuria Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1000 (1999).
[12] cralaw Section 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules of Court.
[13] cralaw Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
[14] cralaw T.S.N., May 3, 2001, Rollo, pp. 258-264.
[15] cralaw T.S.N., Rollo, pp. 258-264.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
