ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1683-MTJ.� August 8, 2005]

VENIDA vs. CONTRERAS

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2005 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1683-MTJ (Atty. Freddie A. Venida vs. Judge Manuel E. Contreras, MTC-Ocampo, Camarines Sur.)

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

1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 31 January 2005 of Atty. Freddie A. Venida, charging Judge Manuel E. Contreras, MTC-Ocampo, Camarines Sur with Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Officer relative to the Administrative Case No. 5190 entitled "Judge Manuel E. Contreras vs. Atty. Freddie A. Venida. "

Complainant alleges that respondent judge furnished his detractors a copy of the Resolution dated 03 March 2004 of the Court (First Division) in Administrative Case No. 5190, wherein the Court resolved to:

(a)��� REITERATE the order of this Court in the resolution of June 16, 2003 regarding Atty. Venida and for him to submit himself to the Supreme Court Clinic for neuro-psychiatric examination within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof; and

(b)��� require the Supreme Court Clinic to SUBMIT a report on the said examination immediately thereafter.

The said resolution was quoted in two pleadings filed in two cases pending before the Ombudsman with case nos. OMB-L-A-04-0600-1 and OMB-L-A-04-0668-J, wherein herein complainant also stands as complainant and Governor Jesus O. Typoco, Jr. of Camarines Norte stands as respondent.

He contends that there could be no other source of the said resolution but the respondent, because the latter was furnished with the said resolution as complainant in the subject administrative case. It is not a remote possibility that Gov. Typoco secured a copy of said resolution from the respondent as the governor's counsel Atty. Alexis Pardo is the sister of Mrs. Purita Pardo-Brinas whose husband is related to respondent Judge Contreras. Such relationship was conveyed to him by Mrs. Purita Brinas.

He claims that the release of the said resolution to his detractors who made it available to the public is in violation of the confidential nature of administrative proceedings. Thus, respondent judge failed in his duty to avoid any kind of impropriety or even the mere appearance of impropriety.

2. COMMENT dated 28 March 2005 of respondent Judge Manuel E. Contreras, denying the allegations in the complaint.

Respondent contends that the allegations of complainant are baseless and unfounded. The complaint is composed of mere allegations that he supplied Gov. Typoco with a copy of the resolution of the Supreme Court dated 03 March 2004 and that he is related to Mrs. Purita Pardo-Brinas. On the mere allegation that Mrs. Brinas told complainant that respondent is related to her (Mrs. Brinas), complainant surmised that he is the source of the resolution of the Supreme Court requiring complainant to submit himself to neuro-psychiatric examination. There is no evidence to support such speculations of the complainant.

Respondent further avers that he has no knowledge of the political disagreements between complainant and Gov. Typoco because he had been long relieved of his assignment in the MTC-Paracale, Camarines Norte and had since then been assigned in Camarines Sur.

EVALUATION:�� The instant administrative complaint is devoid of merit.

The charges against respondent judge are mere allegations. This Court has consistently held that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for an offense, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

It must be stressed that any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are by their nature highly penal, such that the respondent stands to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment. Thus, the Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. As champion - at other times tormentor - of trial and appellate judges, this Court must be unrelenting in weeding the judiciary of unscrupulous judges, but it must also be quick in dismissing administrative complaints which serve no other purpose than to harass them. While it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. When the complainant, as in the case at bar, relies on mere conjectures and suppositions and fails to substantiate his claim, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.

RECOMMENDATION:���� Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the instant complaint 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 hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Manuel E. Contreras is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE