G.R. No. A.M. No. 508-MJ July 31, 1974
Pedro Almazan, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Two unsworn complaints initiated this administrative case against Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario. The first was filed by a “Pedro Almazan,” later confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to be a fictitious person. The second came from an anonymous “civic spirited citizen.” The charges alleged immorality, specifically that the respondent maintained a second wife, a schoolteacher in San Carlos City with whom he had a son, and a third wife employed at the Malasiqui Puericulture Center. The complaints also accused him of arrogance, impoliteness, and notorious gambling. Judge Rosario categorically denied all allegations in his answer, supported by affidavits from local officials attesting to his good moral character and denying knowledge of any illicit relationships.
The NBI investigation reported findings of an alleged past illicit relationship with Desideria Cardeno, resulting in a son born in 1952, and a purported ongoing affair with Vicenta Evangelista. However, the NBI found no evidence to support the charges of arrogance, impoliteness, or gambling and confirmed that the court’s docket showed active case filings and dispositions. The case was referred to an investigating judge for a formal inquiry.

ISSUE

Whether the evidence presented is sufficient to hold Municipal Judge Delfin Rosario administratively liable for the charges of immorality and misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic centered on the fundamental requirements of due process and the burden of proof in administrative proceedings. The Court emphasized the precarious position of the respondent, who was forced to defend himself against accusations from anonymous and fictitious complainants, thereby depriving him of the right to confront his accusers. This scenario violated basic due process guarantees.
On the substantive charges, the Court resolved all doubts in favor of the respondent. Regarding the alleged son with Desideria Cardeno, the Court credited the testimonies of the respondent and Cardeno that the child was fathered by another man and later adopted by Rosario. Crucially, the Court noted that even if the alleged relationship occurred in 1952, it transpired a decade before Rosario’s judicial appointment in 1962 and had reportedly ceased by that time. An old moral flaw, extinguished prior to appointment and not recurring, cannot be a ground for disqualification from a subsequently held office.
Concerning the alleged affair with Vicenta Evangelista, the Court found the respondent’s denial, corroborated by the unbiased testimony of Dr. Armando Andaya, more credible than the NBI agent’s hearsay report, which was based on unnamed sources. The charges of arrogance, impoliteness, and gambling were deemed unsubstantiated, as the NBI itself found no evidence and confirmed the court’s operational caseload. The absence of a complaint from the respondent’s legal wife was also deemed significant. The Court condemned the filing of baseless complaints by anonymous sources, which waste official resources and subject public servants to unwarranted indignity.