G.R. No.: A.M. No. 08-1982-MTJ
Date: October 17, 2008

Case Parties: DANIEL P. ALMADEN, JR., complainant, vs. HON. VICTORIO L. GALAPON, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Dulag, Leyte, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case arose from Civil Case No. 66 for ejectment with damages filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tolosa, Leyte. Complainant Daniel P. Almaden, Jr. was appointed guardian ad-litem for the minor children of defendant Lolita Almaden, who died during the pendency of the case. The MTC decided in favor of the plaintiff, and the decision became final and executory. After the incumbent MTC judge inhibited himself, Executive Judge Leonilo B. Apita designated respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. to act on the case. Respondent Judge granted the plaintiff’s motion for execution, issued a writ of execution, and later issued a writ of demolition after the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. On April 23, 2003, Almaden filed an administrative complaint (docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1402-MTJ) against respondent Judge and the sheriff, alleging that his house, built on a government lot and not part of the ejectment suit, was unlawfully demolished. This complaint was dismissed for utter lack of merit on July 27, 2005. On March 7, 2007, Almaden filed the present administrative complaint against respondent Judge for usurpation of authority, serious misconduct, issuing an unjust order, ignorance of the law, and grave abuse of authority, which was a rehash of the previous dismissed complaint. The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and directed Almaden to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for filing a malicious complaint under A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC. In his response, Almaden failed to explain and merely reiterated his claims.

ISSUE

Whether complainant Daniel P. Almaden, Jr. should be held in contempt of court for filing a baseless and malicious administrative complaint against respondent Judge.

RULING

The Court found complainant Daniel P. Almaden, Jr. guilty of contempt of court and imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00). The allegations against respondent Judge were utterly baseless, as he was acting within the exercise of his discretionary judicial powers. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and Almaden failed to substantiate his charges with sufficient evidence to show fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith. Bare allegations cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. The Court emphasized its duty to protect judiciary members from unfounded suits that disrupt the administration of justice. The recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator was adopted.