SECOND DIVISION
INOCENCIO M.
MONTES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-04-1528
February 6, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE
EFREN B.
MALLARE,MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT,STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA
ECIJA,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
The instant Administrative
Complaint arose when Inocencio M. Montes filed an Affidavit-Complaint
dated
January 2, 1999 charging Judge Efren B. Mallare of the Municipal Trial
Court of Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija, with gross ignorance of the law and
violation of Republic
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) relative to
Criminal
Case No. 4052 entitled People of the Philippines v. Inocencio M.
Montes,
for estafa.
The complainant is the
accused in the said criminal case. The complainant alleged that
during
the preliminary investigation[1]
on November 17, 1998, the complainant (the accused therein) submitted
his
Counter- Affidavit[2]
and the respondent judge questioned him as follows:
Tanong,
Nasaan
ang baril ni Ginoong Manuel Navarro?
Sagot, Nasa bahay
po.
Tanong, Magkano
and
balanse ni Ginoong Manuel Navarro?
Sagot, Five
Thousand
Seven Hundred pesos po, (P5,700.00)
Tanong, Kung
tutubusin
ni Ginoong Manuel Navarro ang nasabing baril, at babayaran ka sa
balanse
niya?
Sagot, Opo.[3]
Thereafter, the
respondent
submitted the case for resolution.[4]
According to the complainant, he was able to speak to Manuel Navarro,
the
complainant in the criminal case, and to SPO1 Gregorio Laugo.[5]
He was told that the only reason why a criminal complaint was filed
against
him was that they wanted him to desist from continuing to prosecute
SPO1
Laugo in Criminal Case No. 98-3119[6]
for robbery with force upon things then pending before the Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, Pampanga.chanrobles virtual law library
The complainant further
alleged that the respondent was paid cash to facilitate the issuance of
the warrant of arrest against him, and that a careful study of the case
would reveal that it was baseless. The complainant concluded that the
respondent
judge conspired with Manuel Navarro and SPO1 Laugo in having him
arrested
and jailed.chanrobles virtual law library
In his Comment,[7]
the respondent denied the foregoing allegations. He admitted that
he rendered a Resolution[8]
on November 24, 1998, finding probable cause for estafa against the
accused
(the complainant) pursuant to par. (b), Section 6, Rule 112 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, and issued a warrant for
the
latter’s arrest. He then ordered the entire records of the case
to
be forwarded to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija
for appropriate action.[9]
He countered that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor affirmed his
findings thereon and filed the corresponding Information[10]
dated December 18, 1998 for estafa against the complainant. The
case
is now pending before the Regional Trial Court of Talavera, Nueva
Ecija,
Branch 88.cralaw:red
According to the respondent,
the complainant was clearly motivated by ill will and hatred and only
instituted
the
present administrative complaint as an act of vengeance. Attached to
the
respondent’s comment were the Affidavits of Manuel G. Navarro[11]
and SPO1 Laugo[12]
denying the complainant’s allegation that they conspired with one
another,
along with the respondent judge, in having the complainant arrested and
charged with estafa.cralaw:red
In his Reply, the complainant
reiterated that on November 13, 1998, he submitted his
Counter-Affidavit
and filed his Motion for Postponement of Hearing. He alleged that
the respondent judge, upon receipt of his motion, remarked, “Hindi
puede
yan kailangan darating ka, inistafa mo ang baril ni Ginoong Manuel
Navarro.”
The complainant concluded that the respondent judge and Navarro were in
cahoots with one another. He also averred that on November 17,
1998,
he caught Manuel Navarro, SPO1 Greg Laugo and the respondent judge
discussing
Criminal Case No. 98-3119, the case against SPO1 Laugo.
Preliminary
investigation then ensued, where the respondent judge did not ascertain
if the complainant was represented by counsel, nor even ask the latter
to secure one for the case.cralaw:red
The complainant also
alleged that he did not receive a copy of the respondent’s November 4,
1998 Resolution. On the scheduled date of hearing of Criminal
Case
No. 98-3119, SPO1 Laugo approached him and requested that he withdraw
the
said complaint. The complainant retorted, “Magaling kayo nakulong
ako kaagad sa kasong isinampa ninyo sa akin,” to which SPO1 Laugo
replied,
“Galante si Ginoong Manuel Navarro, nagbigay lang ng pera sa judge ‘yon
kaya may warrant of arrest ka na.” This statement was allegedly
heard
by people who were within the area at the time, some of whom were
willing
to testify.cralaw:red
In a Letter dated August
2, 1999, the respondent informed the Court of the fact that the Office
of the Ombudsman dismissed a criminal complaint filed by the same
complainant
against him involving the same cause of action as the instant case.chanrobles virtual law library
The case was then referred
to Executive Judge Cholita B. Santos of the RTC of Sto. Domingo, Nueva
Ecija for investigation, report and recommendation. The Executive
Judge scheduled a hearing of the case on August 24, 2000.[13]
However, the notice of the hearing addressed to the complainant was
returned
unserved. According to Sheriff Emmanuel S. Velasco, he was
informed
that the complainant had already sold his house to another, and that he
was residing somewhere in Manila with no forwarding address.[14]
The hearing of the case was re-set to August 31, 2000, but the notice
thereof
was likewise returned unserved.[15]
The Executive Judge issued another Order[16]
re-setting the case for hearing for the last time on September 21,
2000.
The complainant once again failed to appear as the notice of hearing
addressed
to him was likewise returned unserved. The respondent manifested that
the
case against him be recommended dismissed.cralaw:red
In her Report dated
October 18, 2000, Executive Judge Santos recommended that as the
complainant
presented no evidence at all to substantiate the charges against the
respondent,
the instant complaint should be dismissed for lack of evidence.
According
to the Executive Judge, this is in consonance with the rule that “an
affidavit
is hearsay unless the affiant is presented on the witness stand.”[17]chanrobles virtual law library
The Office of the Court
Administrator thereafter received a Letter[18]
dated September 12, 2000 from the complainant, requesting that
Executive
Judge Santos be discharged as the investigating officer. The
complainant
revealed that he likewise instituted a complaint against the Executive
Judge docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-697-RTJ, which was, however,
dismissed
on November 17, 1999. He averred that it would be a disadvantage
for him if Executive Judge Santos would continue to handle the case,
and
further requested that the investigation be transferred to
Manila.
He also stated that the criminal case for estafa filed against him was
pending before the sala of the Investigating Judge and that he filed a
Motion for Transfer of Venue. Until now, his motion remained
unresolved.
He also informed the Court of his new mailing address.chanrobles virtual law library
In a Memorandum dated
April 16, 2001, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez opined that a
judge cannot be made to inhibit himself from hearing a case simply
because
a party or his counsel has instituted administrative charges against a
judge and thereafter claims the existence of a “state of hostility”
between
him and the latter. Thus, according to the OCA the ground cited by the
complainant did not constitute sufficient reason for the Executive
Judge
to cease and desist from investigating the administrative complaint. It
thereafter made the following recommendations:
IN VIEW OF
THE FOREGOING, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the
Honorable
Court recommending that:
1. The letter
dated
September 12, 2000 of the complainant requesting Executive Judge Santos
to inhibit herself from investigating the case be DENIED; andchanrobles virtual law library
2. Executive Judge
Cholita
Santos be INFORMED of the new address of the complainant; and
3. This case be
REFERRED
BACK to Executive Judge Cholita Santos for investigation, report and
recommendation.[19]
The Court adopted the
foregoing
in its Resolution[20]
dated June 27, 2001. The Court ordered the Executive Judge to
submit
her report within ninety (90) days from receipt of notice.
In a letter dated September
10, 2001, the complainant once again prayed for the transfer of the
case
from Nueva Ecija to Manila. He also reiterated his request for
Judge
Santos to be replaced as the Investigating Judge, adding that his life
would be in peril if the case would be investigated in Nueva Ecija.cralaw:red
The respondent still
failed to appear during the hearing of the case on September 14,
2001.
The Executive Judge thereafter issued an Order on the same day, worded
as follows:
WHEREFORE,
on the ground of “delicadeza” and in order that the complainant’s faith
in our Courts of Justice will not be impaired, the complainant having
shown
lack of faith and trust to (sic) the actions of the undersigned and
having
directly and seriously questioned her actuations, it is respectfully
prayed
that this judge be allowed to inhibit from trying this case as she is
now
voluntarily inhibiting herself from further investigating this case.
In a Resolution dated
February
27, 2002, the Court required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda
on the matter. The complainant failed to follow the Court’s
directive
and was thereafter required to show cause why he should not be
disciplinary
dealt with or held in contempt for such failure in our Resolution of
November
11, 2002. For his part, the respondent prayed that the case be
dismissed
for lack of merit, and thereafter filed two ex-parte motions for the
early
resolution of the case.chanrobles virtual law library
In a Resolution dated
June 25, 2003, the case was referred back to the OCA which thereafter
made
the following recommendation:
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommends to this
Honorable
Court that the instant case against respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare,
MTC, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija be DISMISSED. It is further recommended
that complainant Inocencio M. Montes be HELD in CONTEMPT for his
failure
to comply with the Court’s resolutions dated 27 February 2002 and 11
November
2002 and as such be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand
(P10,000) pesos with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.[21]chanrobles virtual law library
We agree.
It must be stressed
that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving
the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In
the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the
respondent
has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative
cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense,
the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from
direct knowledge.[22]
In this case, the complainant failed to substantiate the charges he
made
against the respondent judge, let alone appear before the investigating
magistrate to prove his allegations. Although it is a settled rule that
even the desistance of witnesses themselves does not operate to divest
this Court from investigating a matter involving its personnel,[23]
it is equally true that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and
suppositions
will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges
based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[24]chanrobles virtual law library
If, indeed, the complainant
was interested in pursuing the case against someone he perceives to be
an erring judge, there was nothing to stop him from appearing before
the
Executive Judge and presenting his evidence and his so-called witnesses
to prove his allegations. Anent his claim that his life was in
danger
and that Executive Judge Santos would not dispose of the case in a just
and fair manner, the OCA concluded that the complainant’s fear was “not
supported by any concrete facts except perhaps a paranoia of being the
subject of revenge” of the Executive Judge. The said allegation
was
dismissed by the OCA in this wise:
However, such apprehension
is unlikely to happen. Judging from the records, Executive Judge Santos
exhausted all remedies just to get in touch with the complainant so
[that]
the investigation can proceed. She decided and made recommendations
therein
without discussing the substance of the case but rather on the failure
of the complainant to appear despite due notice. Complainant did not
even
bother to leave any forwarding address leaving the investigating court
no other choice but to recommend the dismissal of the case on account
of
the seeming lack of interest on the part of the complainant to
prosecute
the case.[25]
Furthermore, the complainant
sent a Letter dated September 10, 2001 to the Office of the Court
Administrator
and annexed thereto the notice of the September 14, 2001 hearing issued
by the Executive Judge. He was then aware that a hearing on the
administrative
case was scheduled that day, and instead of supporting his charges with
concrete evidence, again chose not to appear before the court. It
is, thus, not farfetched that his repeated failure to appear before the
Executive Judge was a mere dilatory tactic to prolong the resolution of
this case, and to further harass the respondent.chanrobles virtual law library
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.[26]
WHEREFORE, the Complaint
against respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 24.
[2]
Id. at 20.
[3]
Id. at 1.
[4]
Annex “A3.”chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
The complainant referred to him as “SPO2 Greg Laugo.”
[6]
Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id. at 8-10.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Id. at 25-26.
[9]
Id. at 27.
[10]
Id. at 38.
[11]
Id. at 11-12.
[12]
Id. at 13.
[13]
Rollo, p. 75.
[14]
Id. at 76.
[15]
Id. at 81-83.
[16]
Id. at 85-86.
[17]
Id. at 99-103.
[18]
Id. at 107.
[19]
Id. at 111-112.
[20]
Id. at 113.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Report and Recommendation dated August 7, 2003. p. 6.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of
Judge
Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Branch 22, A.M.
No.
01-1-15-RTC, July 10, 2003.
[23]
See Guray v. Bautista, 360 SCRA 489 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 42 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Rollo, p. 111.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
Dr. Isagani A. Cruz v. Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, A.M. No. RTJ
03-1775,
April 30, 2003. |