[A.M.
No. P-00-1434. February 6, 2002]
JUDGE
YANEZA vs. DIONISIA VILLAFLOR-LAZATIN
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated 06 FEB 2002.
A.M. No. P-00-1434 (Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza, Complainant, vs. Dionisia
Villaflor-Lazatin, Cash Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 54,
Navotas, Metro Manila, Respondent.)
On February 8, 1999, Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza
(Judge Yaneza),[1] Metropolitan
Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, filed with the Office of
the Court Administrator a sworn complaint[2]
accusing Mrs. Dionisia Villaflor-Lazatin (Lazatin), Cash Clerk III, MeTC,
Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, of grave misconduct and conduct inimical to
the best interest of the service, without prejudice to her prosecution for
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R. A.
No. 3019, as amended), and violation of Rule X, Section 1, Paragraphs (a) and
(h), Rules in the Implementation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees (R. A. No. 6713).
The complaint alleged that Lazatin showed an
unusual interest in Civil Cases Nos. 3698 to 3709 (Laiz ejectment cases). According to complainant, Lazatin and her
sister went to his office in the afternoon of February 1, 1999, confronted him
and menacingly accused him of keeping the records of the cases. The sister even
threatened to file a complaint against complainant judge.
The complaint further alleged that the substantial delay in the implementation of the writ of execution issued in the ejectment cases was due to the meddling of Lazatin who had close relations with Sheriff Archimedes D. Almeida, Jr. who was charged with the enforcement of the writ.
On April 23, 1999, Court Administrator Alfredo
L. Benipayo referred the sworn complaint to Lazatin for her answer.[3] On May 20, 1999, Lazatin filed an answer[4]
wherein she denied the allegations in the complaint.
On October 25, 2000, the Court referred the
case to Executive Judge Benjamin Aquino, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Malabon,
Metro Manila[5] for
investigation, report and recommendation.
On January 15, 2001, before the investigation
could be finished, Judge Yaneza moved for the disqualification of Executive
Judge Benjamin Aquino, Jr. on the ground that the latter had a part in Judge
Yaneza’s ouster as judge in A. M. MTJ-99-1175.[6]
On February 12, 2001, the Court referred the
case to Executive Judge Bayani S. Rivera, Regional Trial Court, Kalookan City,
for investigation, report and recommendation.[7]
On May 15, 2001, after reception of the
evidence for the parties, Executive Judge Rivera submitted his report and
recommendation[8] to the
Office of the Court Administrator. On
May 18, 2001, Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño forwarded the report
to the Court.[9]
The report contained the following findings
and conclusions:
“It is respectfully submitted that this administrative complaint should be dismissed for the following reasons:
“1. The complainant himself freely and voluntarily withdrew the charge;
and
“2. Even if the complaint was not withdrawn, still it has no leg to stand
on. Complainant’s testimony was that on
February 1, 1999, respondent and her sister confronted and asked him in a
‘menacing’ and ‘threatening’ manner for the records of the ejectment case
wherein respondent’s father was a co-party.
Such testimony lacks precision and is bereft of any vigor. Complainant did not say why he considered
respondent’s and her sister’s approach to be ‘menacing’ and ‘threatening’. The elementary principle in the rules of
evidence is that an affirmative allegation made by a party must be duly proved
to merit acceptance (People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192). While it is true that a positive testimony
prevails over a negative assertion, the positive testimony must be credible
(People v. Gastador, 305 SCRA 659).
“In the instant case, complainant’s barefaced
testimony is vague, general and unspecified.
Consequently, the complaint is not duly proved and without credence.
“xxx xxx xxx”[10]
We agree with the recommendation of the
investigating judge.
As the complainant in this administrative
complaint, Judge Yaneza had the burden of proving the charges against
respondent Lazatin. As this Court has
held, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is
not evidence.[11] An
administrative charge cannot be based on conjecture. There must be clear, solid and convincing proof to warrant the
exercise of the Court’s disciplinary power over the respondent.
The burden of proof is the duty of a party to
present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.[12]
Judge Yaneza failed to discharge this burden.
In determining where the preponderance or
superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider
all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses’ manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the
facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they
testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or
want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may
legitimately appear upon the trial. The
court may also consider the number of witness, though the preponderance is not
necessarily with the greater number.[13]
In this case, no evidence was presented to
prove the allegations in the complaint aside from complainant’s testimony. In fact, during the hearing, complainant
manifested that he was withdrawing the administrative complaint against
Lazatin, and requested that complainant’s testimony and other documentary
evidence be expunged from the record.[14]
On the other hand, respondent Lazatin had
other witnesses ready to corroborate her testimony that the allegations in the
complaint are unfounded. A witness for
Lazatin was supposed to be presented during the May 3, 2001 hearing, but this
did not happen since the complainant manifested the withdrawal of the complaint
before the witness could be presented.[15]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the administrative
complaint against Mrs. Dionisia Villaflor-Lazatin is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
Clerk
of Court
Asst.
Clerk of Court
[1] In A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175 (March 9,
1999), the Court found Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza guilty of grave abuse of
authority and ordered him dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in the government or
any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-6. On October
25, 2000, the case was docketed as a regular administrative matter (Rollo,
p. 56).
[3] Rollo, p. 30.
[4] Rollo, pp. 32-28.
[5] Rollo, p. 56
[6] Rollo, pp. 70-73.
[7] Rollo, p. 74.
[8] Rollo, pp. 302-306.
[9] Rollo, p. 301.
[10] Rollo, pp. 302-306, at pp. 305-306.
[11] Luxuria
Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 989, 1000 (1999).
[12] Section 1, Rule 131, Revised Rules
of Court.
[13] Section 1, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court.
[14] T.S.N., May 3, 2001, Rollo, pp. 258-264.
[15] T.S.N., Rollo, pp. 258-264.