[A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1053-MTJ. January 16, 2002]
CELESTINO, SR., vs. JUDGE LINDO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JAN
16 2002.
A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1053-MTJ (Emmanuel
Celestino, Sr. vs. Judge Francisco S. Lindo, MeTC-Br. 55, Malabon.)
In a letter dated 9 February 2000, Emmanuel Celestino Sr. charged Judge
Francisco S. Lindo, MeTC, Br, 55, Malabon, with Violation of Adm. Circ. No. 1
dated 28 January 1988 on Raffling of Cases relative to nine (9) ejectment
cases.[1]
Celestino, who claims to be the President of the Lourdes Market Tenants Association, averred that nine (9) ejectment
cases were filed against him and some members of the Association. He contended
that without conducting any raffle, all the nine (9) cases were immediately
assigned to Br. 55 presided by Judge Lindo in violation of Adm. Circ. No. 1.
The letter-complaint was referred to Judge Lindo[2]
and in his comment[3] he strongly
denied the claim that no raffle was conducted. As proof, he attached copies of
the Notice of Raffle and the Minutes of Raffle held on 13 May 1999, 1
June 1999 and 19 August 1999.[4]
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the Notices of Raffle and the Minutes of Raffle submitted by Judge
Lindo belied Celestino’s claim that no raffle was conducted. Thus, it
recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for failure
of complainant to substantiate his allegations.[5]
When the case was referred back to OCA for further study and evaluation,
it reiterated its earlier recommendation to dismiss the instant case for lack
of merit.[6]
We adopt the recommendation of OCA. Indeed, the documentary evidence
presented by Judge Lindo consisting of copies of the Notice of Raffle and Minutes
of Raffle necessarily prevails over the bare assertions of complainant.
Aside from his unsubstantiated claim, complainant did not even present any
piece of evidence to prove his claim.
It is not unlikely for all the nine (9) ejectment cases filed against
complainant to be raffled and assigned to Br. 55 considering that there are
only two (2) branches of MeTC in Malabon with seats thereat.[7]
In this regard, suffice it to state that respondent-judge has in his favor the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which
complainant failed to rebut.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a
finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. In the case before us,
complainant miserably failed to discharge his burden.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very
truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of
Court