PEDRO ALMAZAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE DELFIN ROSARIO, MALASIQUI, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

Almazan versus Rosario

The Case

This is an administrative proceeding against Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, initiated by two complaints that were never sworn to — one written by a certain Pedro Almazan, who turned out to be a fictitious person, and another supposedly prepared by a civic spirited citizen who refused to reveal his identity. The charges were immorality, in the form of alleged second and third wives, and arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to condemn anonymous and fictitious complaints against judicial officers, to vindicate the respondent's right to due process, and to lay down a rule on how the Court treats a moral disqualification that had ceased long before appointment to the bench.

Procedural History

The complaints were referred to the National Bureau of Investigation, whose Director submitted a report dated August 7, 1973, finding an illicit relationship with Desideria Cardeno, an ongoing affair with Vicenta Evangelista, no evidence of arrogance, impoliteness, or gambling, and that Pedro Almazan was fictitious. By resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated February 6, 1974, the case was referred to District Judge Pedro A. Ramirez of Pangasinan, Branch X, stationed at San Carlos City, for investigation and report. Hearings were held on March 6 and March 13, 1974, the second one so that the National Bureau of Investigation agent and his witnesses could appear. The Investigator recommended that the doubt be resolved in favor of the respondent, and the case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter for decision en banc.

Facts

Two complaints of the same nature were filed against Judge Rosario. The first was written by Pedro Almazan, who proved to be a fictitious person. The second came from an anonymous source. Both alleged immorality: a second wife in San Carlos City, a school teacher with one son, and a third wife in Malasiqui employed at the Puericulture Center. They also alleged arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling. Neither complaint was sworn to.

In his answer dated January 18, 1973, the respondent denied the charges, claimed an irreproachable conduct, and supported his denial with the affidavit of the Chief of Police of San Carlos City, the joint affidavit of two Assistant Fiscals, and the sworn statement of Dr. Armando De G. Andaya. The National Bureau of Investigation then reported that the respondent had an illicit relationship with Desideria Cardeno in 1952, by whom he had a son named Arnulfo Rosario; that he was presently carrying on an affair with Vicenta Evangelista, a sanitary inspector at the Malasiqui Puericulture Center, going on for almost ten years; that no evidence supported the charges of arrogance, impoliteness, and gambling; that his court records belied the charge that no cases were filed before him; and that Pedro Almazan was fictitious.

At the investigation, the fictitious complainant could not be located. The respondent presented documentary evidence and witnesses, including Desideria Cardeno, who testified that Arnulfo was her son by a man named Fermin Rosales, that she gave the boy to the respondent, her mother's second cousin, and that the respondent adopted him because he had only a daughter. The National Bureau of Investigation agent presented only documentary evidence, and did not present the persons from whom he received the derogatory information.

Issues

• Whether or not the charges of immorality against the respondent are supported by sufficient evidence.
• Whether or not a relationship that existed long before appointment and had already ceased at the time of appointment may disqualify the respondent from the office he holds.
• Whether or not the charges of arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling were proven.
• Whether or not the complaints, being fictitious and anonymous and unsworn, may be given credence.

Applicable Provisions

The decision invokes the constitutional guarantee of due process, which provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

It bears on the case because the respondent was compelled to defend his honor against accusers he could not confront.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court resolved the doubt in favor of the respondent. It believed his testimony and that of Desideria Cardeno that Arnulfo was her son by Fermin Rosales and was given to the respondent, who adopted him. The Court noted the very significant fact that the complaint did not come from the respondent's wife, Herminia Ocampo, who logically should be the most aggrieved if the charge were true, but from a source that could not even be ascertained because of his cowardice in hiding behind the cloak of anonymity.

On the second issue, the Court entertained serious doubts whether the respondent should be punished for a relationship that happened in 1952, long before his appointment as Municipal Judge in 1962, and which had already stopped at the time of his appointment. It reasoned that if he was considered qualified when appointed in 1962, an alleged disqualification that existed long before his appointment and no longer existed at the time of such appointment, and even up to the present, should not be sufficient ground to disqualify him now.

On the third issue, the Court held that no evidence substantiated the alleged arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling, and that the check of court records belied the charge that no cases were filed in his court.

On the fourth issue, the Court stressed that both complaints were not sworn to, and that the respondent was placed in the precarious situation of not being able to confront his accusers, thereby depriving him of his fundamental right to due process of law. It also held that the overwhelming evidence for the respondent completely obliterated whatever suspicion there may be of the alleged illicit relationship with Vicenta Evangelista, and that it was more logical to rely on his denial, supported by the apparently unbiased testimony of Dr. Andaya, than on the wholly hearsay evidence of the National Bureau of Investigation agent who did not present the persons from whom he received the information.

Doctrine

First, an administrative complaint against a judicial officer that is fictitious, anonymous, and unsworn cannot be given credence, and proceeding on it places the respondent in the position of not being able to confront his accusers, in violation of the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Second, a moral disqualification that existed long before appointment and had already ceased at the time of appointment, and even up to the present, is not sufficient ground to disqualify a judge from the office he holds. Third, hearsay findings of an investigating agent, unsupported by the testimony of the persons from whom the information was received, cannot overcome the respondent's denial supported by unbiased witnesses. Fourth, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the respondent.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint, considered all the charges without merit, and ordered the case terminated and closed, with the respondent vindicated.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a disqualification that existed long before appointment and no longer existed at the time of appointment is not sufficient ground to disqualify a judge now. Examiners use this case on anonymous and fictitious complaints against judicial officers, on the due process right to confront one's accusers, and on the rule that doubts in administrative charges are resolved in favor of the respondent.