G.R. No.: A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3243-RTJ
Date: April 1, 2013

Case Parties/Title: JOHNWELL W. TIGGANGAY, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARCELINO K. WACAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Johnwell W. Tiggangay filed a verified letter-complaint dated July 31, 2009, charging respondent Judge Marcelino K. Wacas, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 25 in Tabuk City, Kalinga, with Impropriety and Partiality. The charges stemmed from Judge Wacas’s handling of Election Case No. 40, an electoral protest filed by Tiggangay after losing the mayoralty race in Tanudan, Kalinga, to Rhustom L. Dagadag by 158 votes. Judge Wacas rendered a Decision on August 8, 2008, affirming Dagadag’s victory (with a reduced margin of 97 votes), which was subsequently upheld by the COMELEC.
Tiggangay alleged two main grounds for the administrative complaint:
1. Failure to Inhibit: Tiggangay claimed that during the proceedings, he learned Judge Wacas was Dagadag’s second cousin by affinity (the judge’s aunt being married to an uncle of Dagadag). He argued this relationship mandated inhibition under the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, but Judge Wacas did not recuse himself.
2. Attendance at Victory Party: Tiggangay alleged that after the decision, Judge Wacas and his wife attended Dagadag’s victory party on August 23, 2008. He supported this with an affidavit from his driver, Fidel Gayudan, who attested to seeing them fetched by a vehicle owned by Dagadag. Tiggangay also cited an affidavit from Corazon Somera (his aunt) regarding an allegedly improper statement made by the judge’s sister-in-law, which the judge did not rebuke.
In his Comment, Judge Wacas denied any relationship by affinity to Dagadag, stating the allegation was based on “reliable sources,” not personal knowledge. He emphasized that Tiggangay never filed a motion for inhibition during the entire electoral protest proceedings. He also vehemently denied attending the victory party, asserting he was at a clan gathering from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. that day, supported by affidavits from family members and acquaintances.
The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. During the proceedings, the parties stipulated that no motion to inhibit was ever filed by Tiggangay during the election case, and the complaint was filed only after the RTC decision and COMELEC dismissal. Only Tiggangay and Gayudan testified for the complaint; Somera did not appear, so her affidavit was expunged. For the defense, witnesses including Judge Wacas, his wife, and others testified to his whereabouts on the day of the alleged party.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Marcelino K. Wacas is administratively liable for Impropriety and Partiality based on: (1) his failure to inhibit himself from hearing the electoral protest due to an alleged relationship by affinity with the winning party-litigant, and (2) his alleged attendance at the victory party of said party-litigant.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for lack of substantial evidence.
1. On the Alleged Relationship and Failure to Inhibit:
* The Court found Tiggangay failed to present substantial evidence to prove the alleged relationship by affinity between Judge Wacas and Dagadag. The claim remained a mere allegation.
Even assuming arguendo* that the judge’s aunt is married to Dagadag’s uncle, this does not create a relationship by affinity between Judge Wacas and Dagadag themselves. Affinity is the relation one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other spouse (e.g., in-laws). There is no affinity between the blood relatives of one spouse and the blood relatives of the other (a concept known as affinitas affinitatis).
* Consequently, Judge Wacas is not disqualified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates inhibition for relationships within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. No mandatory ground for inhibition existed.
* The Court noted that Tiggangay never moved for inhibition during the trial, viewing the belated complaint as a speculative attempt to retaliate after an adverse ruling.
2. On the Alleged Attendance at the Victory Party:
* The Court found Tiggangay’s evidence insufficient to substantiate the claim. The lone testimony of his driver, Fidel Gayudan, was deemed uncorroborated and insufficient to overcome the positive denials and supporting testimonies of Judge Wacas and his witnesses, who provided a credible alibi for his whereabouts on the date in question.
* The charge was therefore not proven by the required quantum of proof in administrative cases, which is substantial evidence.
Conclusion: The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof. The allegations of partiality and impropriety were not supported by substantial, relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Hence, the administrative complaint was dismissed.