ALEJANDRO B. SUERTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE MARCIAL G. UGBINAR OF BADIAN, CEBU, RESPONDENT.

It is immediately apparent from this administrative action for
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law against Marcial
G. Ugbinar, then municipal judge of Badian, Cebu,
now retired, that complainant Alejandro B. Suerte of
the same municipality was motivated either by a strong sense of civic duty or
by deep personal animosity.  He did rake
up acts of respondent Judge, who in 1948 and then again in 1970 allegedly
notarized affidavits immoral and illegal in character.  To demonstrate incompetence and gross
ignorance, complainant also set forth the assumption of jurisdiction by
respondent Judge in 1968 in a criminal case beyond his jurisdiction and his
attributing to a certain lawyer the filing of a motion when such was not the
case.  It is of interest to note that he
did not appear to be the aggrieved party in any of the matters specified.  His verified letter complaint was filed with
the Department of Justice on August
14, 1972.  Respondent Judge
was made to answer.  He did so.  Thereafter, Judge Antonio Cinco
of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was designated
to investigate the complaint and to submit his report and recommendation.

In compliance with such directive from the Secretary of Justice,
Judge Cinco heard the complaint and then on April 10,
1973, submitted the following report with his recommendation:  “When this administrative case
‘Re-Alejandro B. Suerte v. Municipal Judge of Badian, Cebu‘ was received by the
undersigned last January, 1973, from the Executive Judge, the undersigned had
it calendared for hearing on February
23, 1973.  On that date,
neither the complainant nor the respondent appeared.  It was reset for March 10, 1973. 
Counsel for the complainant moved to postpone that March 10, 1973 hearing and so it was postponed to
March 17, 1973.  When the case was called for hearing on March 17, 1973, complainant and
respondent appeared with their lawyers. 
The complainant took the witness stand and testified.  Without having been able to finish testifying
on direct examination, the hearing was postponed to April 7, 1973. 
When April 7, 1973
came, the parties appeared together with their lawyers.  Atty. Hilario Davide appearing for the complainant handed to the Court a
motion for dismissal, and at the same time verbally moved the Court to dismiss
this administrative case on the ground stated in the complainant’s motion for
dismissal signed by the complainant’s attorney, the complainant himself, with
the conformity of the respondent and the latter’s counsel who have also signed.  After studying carefully the propriety of
acceding to the motion for dismissal, the undersigned proceeded to read
carefully the charges alleged in the complaint, and the respondent’s answer
together with the annexes.  After reading
the explanation of the respondent to each of the charges and the supporting
affidavits-Annexes, the undersigned is constrained to make the observation that
the respondent’s answer and his explanations therein contained are satisfactory
and are entitled to full weight and credit. 
It is recommended that the charges against the respondent be dropped not
only because the complainant himself has filed a motion for dismissal thereby
failing to substantiate his charges; but also, because the respondent’s answer
deserves belief and credit.”^[1]

The present Constitution having come into force and effect in the
meanwhile, with the transfer of supervision over inferior courts to this
Tribunal, the records of this administrative complaint were transmitted to
us.  The then Acting Judicial Consultant,
retired Justice Manuel P. Barcelona of the Court of Appeals, went over the
pleadings, the transcript of stenographic notes, and the report of Judge Cinco.  He arrived at
the same conclusion that Judge Cinco did.  As he stated in his brief memorandum,
“the dismissal of the complaint is in order and the same is hereby
recommended.”^[2]

The above recommendation, a reiteration of what was submitted to
the Department of Justice by Judge Cinco, merits the
approval of this Court.  This is to defer
the basic concept first announced in 1922 in this jurisdiction in Justice
Malcolm’s opinion in the leading case of In re Horrilleno^[3]
that proceedings of this character being “in their nature highly
penal,” the charge “must, therefore, be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.”^[4]
To paraphrase the opinion further, there is no showing of the alleged
incompetence and gross ignorance of the law “by a preponderance of the
evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.”^[5]
Such an exacting standard has been adhered to by this Court in subsequent decisions.^[6]
Nor should the circumstance be ignored, as was specifically made mention of in
the memorandum of the then Acting Judicial Consultant, that with the compulsory
retirement of respondent Judge, there is an added justification for the
dismissal of this complaint.

WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent
Judge Marcial G. Ugbinar is
dismissed.  Let a copy of this resolution
be spread on his record.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino,
and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Report and Recommendation of Judge Cinco dated April 10, 1973.

^[2]
Memorandum of the then Acting Judicial Consultant, Manuel P. Barcelona of January 31, 1975.

^[3]
43 Phil. 212.

^[4] Ibid,
215.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6]
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, August 21, 1976; Tolentino v. Tiong, Adm. Case No. 535-MJ, Aug. 21, 1976; Amosco v. Magro, Adm. Case
No. 439-MJ, Sept. 30, 1976.