A.M. No. 1106-CFI. January 24, 1977
ARMANDO B. CLEDERA, COMPLAINANT, VS. DELFIN VIR. SUNGA, DISTRICT JUDGE, BRANCH I CFI, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.
MUÑOZ PALMA, J.:
Respondent Judge Delfin Vir. Sunga of the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur,
Branch I, was charged in a complaint filed by Atty. Armando B. Cledera with “dishonesty, partiality, abuse of
authority, insubordination and falsification of official documents.” We
required respondent to comment on the complaint and upon receipt of the same
(pp. 41-45, rollo) the
matter was referred to Justice Vicente Santiago, Jr. of the Court of Appeals
for investigation, report and recommendation.
(p. 118, rollo)
The Report of Justice Vicente Santiago, Jr. dated August 9, 1976 shows the following:
The case was set for hearing on several dates with notices to
both complainant and respondent but the hearing could not proceed due to
motions for postponement of Atty. Cledera on the
ground of ill health, he having suffered mild strokes which resulted in
paralysis of half of his body and confinement in a hospital. Sometime on August 6, 1976, respondent Judge filed with the Honorable
Investigator a motion to dismiss the complaint for the reason that the
complainant had died and was interred on July 10, 1976, thereby rendering the charges moot and
academic. A certification on the death
of Armando B. Cledera was submitted by respondent.
In view of the death of the complainant and there being no
testimonial or documentary evidence submitted to substantiate the charges, the
investigating Justice recommends the dismissal of this complaint.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, this
administrative complaint is dismissed without prejudice however to its reinstatement
by any other interested party.
So Ordered.
Teehankee, Barredo,
Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and
Martin, JJ., concur.
Fernando, J. see concurring and
dissenting opinion.
Castro, C.J., concurs in J.
Fernando’s concurring and dissenting opinion.
Clean
Clean
6 pt
6 pt
0
3
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
FERNANDO, J.:
To my mind, there is no question about the correctness of the
result reached. The case must be
dismissed. This brief opinion therefore
is primarily a concurrence. That would be
in line with the well-settled principle first announced by Justice Malcolm in
the leading case of In re Horrilleno,[1]
decided as far back as 1922, to the effect that the guilt of a judge against
whom an administrative complaint is lodged “must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.”[2]
Here there is no proof at all. To
repeat, concurrence is more than indicated.
The dissenting part then is certainly minimal. It is induced by caution, ex abundante cautela,
to repeat a well-worn phrase. As far as
the opinion of the Court goes, it can be truly said that Justice Muñoz Palma has lived up to the usual care with which she
handles her assignments as ponente for the
Court. If I add a few words of dissent
then, it is only to express my conviction that with the administrative
supervision over inferior courts now vested in this Tribunal, I would not rule
out the power of this Court in appropriate cases to look into an administrative
complaint through an investigator, whether from its staff or from the
judiciary, even if the complainant is no longer available. There may be reliable witnesses, and the
liability of respondent, if any, ascertained.
That to me is to assure effectiveness of the competence now vested in
this Court. Hence this
observation by way of a dissent.
However, to repeat, as to this particular case, I am in agreement
with the result reached.
[1] 43 Phil. 212.
[2] Ibid, 215. Cf. Enriquez v. Araula,
Adm. Case No. 270-J, Dec. 18, 1973, 54 SCRA 232; Tombo
v. Medina, Adm. Case No. 929, Jan. 17, 1974, 55 SCRA 13; Lampauog v. Villarojo,
Adm. Case No. 381-MJ, Jan. 28, 1974, 55 SCRA 304; Bartolome
v. de Borja, Adm. Case No. 1096, May 31, 1976,
71 SCRA 153; De Guzman v. De Leon, Adm. Case No. 1328-MJ, July 30, 1976;
Meimban v. Balite,
Adm. Case No. 131-MJ, Aug. 21, 1976; Tolentino v. Tiong, Adm. Case No. 535-MJ, Aug. 21, 1976; Amosco v. Magro, Adm. Case
No. 439-MJ, Sept. 30, 1976.