G.R. No. A.M. No. 309-MJ May 31, 1976
JOSE P. CONCEPCION, complainant, vs. HON. JOSE R. VELA, Municipal Judge of Panganiban, Catanduanes, respondent.

FACTS

Jose P. Concepcion, President of the Association of Barrio Councils, filed a verified administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Jose R. Vela for malfeasance and dereliction of duty. The complaint contained three specific counts: first, that Judge Vela falsified his daily time records by certifying his presence on days he was allegedly absent from his station; second, that he instructed police officers to serve warrants of arrest only when he was out of town or on vacation; and third, that he improperly dismissed a criminal case for theft despite the existence of written confessions from two accused. In his defense, Judge Vela denied all charges, characterizing the complaint as a harassment tactic motivated by the complainant’s own pending criminal cases.
The Department of Justice referred the matter to District Judge Jose Nepomuceno for formal investigation. The investigating judge meticulously examined the evidence for each count. For the first count, witnesses could only specify a few alleged absences in 1972, and their testimonies were hazy and contradictory. Documentary evidence, like a pocket calendar and diary entries indicating “Judy out,” was found to be unreliable, with entries appearing to be fabricated after the fact or made with different writing instruments.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to substantiate the administrative charges of malfeasance and dereliction of duty against respondent Judge Jose R. Vela.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, adopting the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, and charges must be substantiated by substantial evidence. The Court found that the complainant failed to meet this burden for all three counts.
Regarding the falsification of time records, the investigation revealed that Judge Vela’s documented absences were justified. They occurred on official holidays, during authorized sick leaves, while he was attending mandatory judicial conferences, or while he was performing official duties in another municipality as officially designated. The complainant’s evidence was deemed unreliable and insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. For the second count, the allegation about instructing officers on warrant service was based merely on the complainant’s impression, with no direct evidence presented. The presumption of regularity in official functions therefore prevailed. Finally, the third count was factually erroneous. The record showed Judge Vela did not dismiss the theft case; instead, he convicted the accused after they pleaded guilty to an amended complaint. Consequently, with the charges unsubstantiated, the Court had no basis to exercise its disciplinary powers and exonerated the respondent judge.