G.R. No. RTJ-03-1757. February 19, 2003
ALBERT T. UY, complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R. OSORIO, RTC, Branch 171, Valenzuela, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Albert Uy, a defendant in Civil Case No. 4701-V-95 pending in respondent Judge Adriano Osorio’s sala, alleged in an affidavit-complaint that the judge repeatedly invited him to a karaoke bar named “Barracks.” There, respondent allegedly solicited a television set, an air-conditioner, and monetary sums totaling ₱30,000 and US$1,000, promising a favorable decision in return. Complainant claimed he provided these, mortgaging his car and closing bank accounts. After respondent unloaded the case to another branch in May 1996, complainant demanded restitution. Subsequently, two checks drawn under the name of Christian Osorio (respondent’s son) were delivered to complainant’s family, purportedly as partial payment.
In his comment, respondent judge vehemently denied the allegations. He asserted that the karaoke bar was owned by his son, Christian. He explained that complainant, a disgruntled litigant against whom he had issued a writ of preliminary attachment, befriended Christian and supplied appliances and cash under a business arrangement. Respondent claimed he only learned of complainant’s subsequent request for case influence through his son, which prompted him to properly unload the case using a Supreme Court administrative order as justification, thereby preserving judicial integrity.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Adriano R. Osorio is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge based on the allegations of solicitation and promise of a favorable decision.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence. The investigating justice found, and the Court concurred, that the evidence pointed to a private transaction between complainant and the judge’s son, Christian Osorio. The Court noted complainant’s admission that he could not personally access the judge in his chambers, making it improbable that the judge would meet him socially to make demands. Furthermore, complainant presented no corroborating witness to testify about any meetings at the bar. His testimony was inconsistent, shifting the stated purpose of the funds from supporting a purported second family to bar renovations and a vacation.
The Court found respondent’s explanation credible: complainant cultivated a relationship with Christian Osorio to indirectly influence the case. Upon learning of this, respondent appropriately unloaded the case to avoid any impropriety. The act of unloading one case while retaining another involving a compadre was not improper per se, as the party in the retained case did not move for inhibition. The burden of proof in administrative cases rests on the complainant, and the evidence failed to substantiate the serious charges with clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence.