AM 10 2 41 RTC; (February, 2013) (Digest)
A.M. No. 10-2-41-RTC; February 27, 2013
RE: MISSING EXHIBITS AND COURT PROPERTIES IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, PANABO CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a letter dated May 7, 2009, sent by Atty. Jacquelyn A. Labustro-Garcia, the newly appointed Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 4, Panabo City, to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Upon assuming her position on February 16, 2009, she conducted an inventory of court exhibits and properties based on an acknowledgment receipt from the OCA’s Property Division. She reported discovering missing items and subsequently informed the presiding judge, Judge Jesus L. Grageda, and initiated correspondence with court personnel and the OCA regarding the matter. The OCA, through a memorandum, directed Judge Grageda and Atty. Labustro-Garcia to investigate and report on the missing items. Judge Grageda submitted his reply in September 2009, and he compulsorily retired on November 25, 2009.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Jesus L. Grageda should be held administratively liable for the alleged missing court exhibits and properties, or for failing to properly investigate the reported losses.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Grageda. The Court disagreed with the OCA’s recommendation to fine him for violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars due to alleged inaction. The Court’s ruling was anchored on two primary legal grounds. First, it emphasized fundamental due process. The OCA submitted its memorandum recommending liability more than two years and seven months after Judge Grageda’s compulsory retirement. Crucially, during his incumbency, he was never formally charged or given an opportunity to comment specifically on the accusation of violating court rules through neglect of duty. Citing precedent (Office of the Court Administrator v. Mantua), the Court held that a judge cannot be adjudged liable for an offense without being afforded the chance to explain.
Second, the Court found a lack of substantial evidence to support the charge. The OCA’s own memorandum noted that a subsequent judicial audit team found no missing exhibits or properties, directly contradicting the initial report. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and charges must be substantiated by competent evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties prevails. The Court found the allegations unsubstantiated and based on conflicting inventories, which were insufficient to overcome this legal presumption. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the release of Judge Grageda’s retirement benefits was ordered.