A.M. No. 253-MJ. May 29, 1975. MAYOR ALFONSO S. AUSEJO, ET AL., complainants, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE GAUDENCIO P. PAJUNAR of Bacong, Negros Oriental, respondent.
FACTS

The administrative complaint stemmed from deep-seated personal differences between then-Mayor Alfonso S. Ausejo of Bacong, Negros Oriental, and Municipal Judge Gaudencio P. Pajunar. The complainants accused Judge Pajunar of several offenses, including absence without official permission, ignorance of the law, and partiality and unfairness in his judicial conduct. The case was initially under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, which referred it to Executive Judge Macario P. Santos of Dumaguete City for investigation. Respondent Judge Pajunar filed an answer denying all the charges as baseless.
During the investigation, only one witness testified for the complainants at the initial hearing. When the hearing resumed, the counsel for the complainants made a significant manifestation in open court. He stated that after interviewing the witnesses and thoroughly studying their prospective testimonies, he found them to be vacillating and unreliable. Consequently, he moved for the dismissal of the administrative case, conceding that the charges could not be sustained with the available evidence. Executive Judge Santos, finding the motion well-taken, submitted a report recommending dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative charges against Municipal Judge Gaudencio P. Pajunar should be sustained.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The ruling was grounded on the fundamental principle that in administrative proceedings against judicial officers, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The charges must be substantiated by clear, convincing, and preponderant evidence. In this case, the complainants themselves, through their counsel, effectively withdrew the charges during the investigation. The counsel’s explicit manifestation that the witnesses were vacillating and that the evidence at hand could not sustain the accusations constituted a failure to meet the required burden of proof.
The Court emphasized that administrative sanctions are imposed not to punish but to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Without substantial evidence to support the allegations of misconduct, the complaint cannot prosper. The recommendation of the investigating judge and the subsequent endorsement by the Judicial Consultant, based on the lack of substantiated evidence, were upheld. The dismissal underscores that unsubstantiated charges, especially those appearing to originate from personal animosity, cannot be the basis for holding a judge administratively liable. The Court thus cleared Judge Pajunar of all charges.