[A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-22-SCC.
SAPHRALYN P. MINALANG v. JUDGE AMELADIN M. ALAUYA, 8th SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MALABANG, LANAO DEL SUR AND CLERK OF COURT DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT, MARAWI CITY
First Division
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated SEPT. 18, 2006.
A.M. OCA-IPI No. 06-22-SCC (Saphralyn P. Minalang v. Judge Ameladin M. Alauya, 8th Shari'a Circuit Court, Malabang, Lanao del Sur and Clerk of Court Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City)
Acting on the Report[1]
of the Office of the Court Administrator dated
Filed before this Office on May 3, 2006 by Saphralyn P. Minalang is
a complaint against Judge Ameladin M. Alauya, 8th
Shari'a Circuit Court of Malabang,
Lanao del Sur for Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of
Discretion; and against Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio
Deputy Sheriff of Shari'a District Court, Marawi City
for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Dereliction of
duty. On
The complaint against Judge Alauya is basically anchored on : 1.) the presence of Judge Alauya on the hearing of the motion for issuance of Writ of Execution in Civil Case No. 2001-19 entitled "Saphralyn B. Minalang vs. Col. Alimosa M. Buale" for Partition of Properties upon Divorce, Recovery of unpaid Mahr and Custody of Minors, before the Second Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi City presided over by Hon. Aboali J. Cali; and 2.) taking cognizance of Civil Case No. 05-02, entitled Alimosa M. Buale vs. "Saphralyn Minalang-Guiling, for Divestment of Parental Authority over the Persons and Properties of Minor Children by Reason of Marriage (Dispute Relative to Marriage) despite the objections of the herein complainant and rendering a decision divesting the latter of parental authority over the persons and properties of her minor children with Col. Alimosa Baule.
In his comment, Judge Alauya stressed that the reason for his
presence at the Shari'a Circuit Court, Marawi City,
which was sometime on March 3, 2004 was to check and verify on a case where the
Presiding Judge of the said court was proposed to be inhibited and where he was
allegedly groomed to try and not to attend the hearing of the motion for
execution. Judge Alauya was actually designated
by Judge Rasad Balindong to
try, hear and decide the said case. As
regards to Civil Case filed by Col. Alimosa Baule on March 1, 2005 against the herein complainant, the
motion for inhibition filed in the said court was denied by respondent Judge on
the ground that plaintiff Col. Alimosa Baule is related to the herein respondent within the 7th
civil degree of consanguinity, hence, is not covered under Section 1, Rule 137
of the Rules of Court on disqualification of judicial officers, which Order had
attained finality. Further, Judge Alauya
in the performance of his judicial functions rendered the decision on the said
case on
The complaint against respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya is based on the alleged failure of the respondent to execute the decision of the Second Shari'a Circuit Court of Marawi City which is according to complainant is a clear defiance of the order of the Court and in violation of Rule 139 of the Rules of Court. Further, that respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya deliberately failed to inform the Court of the status of the land subject of litigation knowing fully that the land was subject of a final and executory judgment and that as a result of such inactions, a decision based on compromise agreement was rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Lanao Del Norte presided over by Hon. Moslemen Macarambon thereby depriving the children of the complainant their rights over the said land, which act of Alauya constitutes not only gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty and gross misconduct but a mockery of justice.
Respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya in his comment denied all the
accusations against him for being baseless, unfounded and malicious. That on January 6, 2005, he received a letter
request from Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of Court II, Second Shari'a Circuit Court, for the services of the Deputy
Sheriff for the execution/implementation of the Writ of Execution issued in
Civil Case No. 2002-19, together with the copy of the writ of execution and the
decision of the Court dated December 6, 2004. On September 13, 2005, he received another letter
of the same nature but the same was returned by the latter to the Clerk of
Court with the information that the said writ is an issue in a pending case before
the Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. Civil Case No. 00575), and that the herein
respondent being one of the parties in the said case cannot preempt whatever
decision and/or order that may be promulgated by the appellate court. On
EVALUATION: The charges for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Grave Abuse of Discretion against Judge Ameladin M. Alauya are without basis as the same are not supported by any evidence on record. The Order of the Respondent Judge denying the Motion for Inhibition filed by the herein complainant in Civil Case No. 05-02 is in the performance of his judicial functions. Respondent Judge clearly stated in [his] order denying the Motion for Inhibition that he is related to the plaintiff in the above-mentioned case within the 7th degree of consanguinity, thus, is not covered by Section 1, Rules 137 of the Rules of Court on disqualification of judicial officers. Being a judicial function, the complainant should have availed of a judicial remedy which is a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying the motion for inhibition and latter became final there being no appeal taken therefrom.
On the issue of the presence of the Respondent Judge in the hearing of the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution before the sala of Judge Aboali J. Cali, the complainant failed to show proof that Judge Alauya used his position to influence Judge Cali. Respondent Judge satisfactorily explained that his presence on the sala of Judge Cali was merely incidental as he has to check on a case wherein Judge Cali inhibited himself which case was eventually assigned to [him] in view of such inhibition. The complainant failed to show any evidence in support of her complaint thereby making all the allegations therein self-serving and should not be given weight. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant which in this case, complainant Saphralyn P. Minalang failed.
The charges for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct and Dereliction of Duty against respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya,
are mere allegations and general statements which are not supported by any
evidence. The complaint does not state
the particular acts which were commited by the respondent
that could warrant conviction.
Respondent Datu Ashary M. Alauya had satisfactorily explained in his
comment that when he received a letter from Macalinog S. Abdullah, Clerk of
Court II, Second Shari'a District Court,
WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that the complaint against Respondent Judge AMELADIN M. ALAUYA and Clerk of Court DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[2] In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondents have regularly performed their duties.[3]
In the case at bar, the evidence submitted by the complainant is insufficient to establish the charges against the respondents. Besides, the respondents were able to refute the charges hurled against them.
The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the Judiciary. At the same time, however, neither will we hesitate to shield the same employees from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[4]
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaints against respondent Judge AMELADIN M. ALAUYA and Clerk of Court DATU ASHARY M. ALAUYA are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division