AM 88; (January, 1977) (Digest)
A.M. No. 88-MJ. January 25, 1977. ALEJANDRO B. SUERTE, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE MARCIAL G. UGBINAR of Badian, Cebu, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Alejandro B. Suerte filed a verified letter-complaint with the Department of Justice on August 14, 1972, charging then Municipal Judge Marcial G. Ugbinar of Badian, Cebu, with incompetence and gross ignorance of the law. The allegations referenced acts from 1948 and 1970, where the respondent judge allegedly notarized affidavits of an immoral and illegal character. The complainant also cited instances of the judge assuming jurisdiction and attributing a motion to a lawyer incorrectly. Notably, Suerte did not appear to be the aggrieved party in any of the cited incidents. Respondent Judge filed his answer, and Judge Antonio Cinco of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was designated to investigate.
During the investigation, after several hearings, the complainant, through his counsel and with his personal conformity, filed a motion to dismiss the administrative case. The motion was also concurred in by the respondent and his counsel. Investigating Judge Cinco, after reviewing the complaint, answer, and supporting annexes, found the respondent’s explanations credible and recommended dismissal, noting the complainant’s failure to substantiate the charges.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint for incompetence and gross ignorance of the law against respondent Judge Marcial G. Ugbinar should be dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the administrative complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court approved the recommendation for dismissal. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle governing administrative proceedings against judges, which are penal in nature. As established in the leading case of In re Horrilleno, such charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the complainant not only filed a motion to dismiss his own complaint but also failed to present evidence meeting the required stringent standard of proof. There was no showing of the alleged incompetence and gross ignorance by a preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also noted the added justification that the respondent judge had already compulsorily retired. Consequently, with the charges unsubstantiated and the high burden of proof unmet, dismissal of the complaint was proper.