AM 340; (April, 1979) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 340-MJ April 30, 1979
ANTONIO CUTARAN, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SOLOMON VILLANUEVA, Ambaguio, Nueva Vizcaya, respondent.
FACTS
In an unsigned and unverified complaint dated September 30, 1972, Antonio Cutaran charged Municipal Judge Solomon Villanueva with being “always absent from (his) official station and yet received full salary every month.” The complaint, which also implicated several other officials for various alleged irregularities, was filed with the Supreme Court. In his comment dated January 3, 1973, Judge Villanueva categorically denied the accusation. He asserted that the complainant could not be located in Bayombong, as evidenced by three undelivered letters from the Department of Justice addressed to Cutaran. The respondent judge offered explanations for any perceived absences, stating they might refer to a three-month detail with the Court of First Instance or periods during the rainy season when impassable mountain trails necessitated holding court at an established sub-office in Barrio Masok, with the concurrence of local officials. He maintained that his official service record would substantiate his compliance with his duties amidst challenging geographic conditions.
ISSUE
Whether the unsigned and unverified administrative complaint against Judge Solomon Villanueva for alleged habitual absenteeism should be given due course and merit.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Court emphasized the fundamental procedural and substantive requirements for administrative charges against members of the judiciary. Administratively, such complaints are accusatorial in nature; therefore, they must be subscribed and sworn to, and should be accompanied by testimonial or documentary evidence sufficient to establish the respondent’s culpability and invoke the Court’s disciplinary power. The complaint against Judge Villanueva failed to meet this basic standard, as it was neither verified nor supported by any evidence.
The Court ruled that the charge appeared to be based on mere conjecture, surmise, or inference. Administrative sanctions cannot be predicated on suspicion or unsubstantiated allegations. The burden of proof rests squarely on the complainant, and such proof must be solid, clear, and convincing to warrant disciplinary action. In this case, the complainant failed to discharge this burden. Conversely, the respondent judge’s comment was deemed satisfactory, as it provided a plausible and legitimate explanation for his whereabouts, referencing official details and the practical necessities of holding court in a remote, mountainous municipality. The absence of verification and any corroborating evidence rendered the complaint insufficient to proceed.