A.M. No. P-04-1914. April 30, 2008.
GLANIE FLORES, SYLVIA FLORES, RICHARD FLORES, TIMOTEO FLORES, LEONARDO FLORES, VIRGILIO FLORES, and DANNY FLORES, complainants, vs. MYRNA S. LOFRANCO, Clerk III, RTC, Br. 20, Digos City, Davao Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, siblings and spouses of Sabino Flores, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Myrna S. Lofranco, a court clerk, for immorality, misconduct, and violation of R.A. No. 6713 . They alleged that respondent, while still legally married to another, was illicitly cohabiting with their brother Sabino. They supported this with an affidavit from Sabino’s son, Jestoni, a barangay blotter entry, and a “Kasabutan” document where respondent signed as “Myrna Soledad Flores.” Complainants further accused respondent of destroying a fence on a family lot, threatening them, and taking photographs in a menacing manner during a confrontation.
Respondent denied all allegations. She claimed her relationship with Sabino was strictly a business partnership involving a mango plantation. She asserted she lived separately, her marriage had long failed, and she alone supported her children. Respondent presented an affidavit from her daughter corroborating her claims and a recantation affidavit from Jestoni Flores, who disavowed his earlier statement. She argued the blotter entry was a typographical error and the “Kasabutan” was signed under duress from armed men. Respondent maintained she only took photos for protection and that it was complainants who committed aggressive acts, leading her to file criminal complaints against them.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Myrna S. Lofranco is administratively liable for immorality, misconduct, and violation of ethical standards based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of substantial evidence. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainants to substantiate their charges with substantial evidence. The complainants failed to meet this burden. They did not appear at the investigation despite notice, resulting in a waiver of their right to present evidence. Consequently, the only evidence for the charges consisted of their unverified documentary submissions, which were effectively rebutted by respondent’s evidence.
The key affidavit from Jestoni Flores, alleging cohabitation, was negated by his subsequent affidavit of recantation, wherein he stated the original was made under pressure from his relatives. Without his testimony to affirm the initial affidavit, it carried no probative value. The barangay blotter and “Kasabutan” document, standing alone and contradicted by respondent’s plausible explanations, were insufficient to prove the allegations of illicit cohabitation or misconduct. The investigating judge found respondent’s evidence credible. Since the complainants did not discharge their burden of proof, the charges cannot stand. The Court emphasized that mere allegations, absent convincing proof, cannot warrant administrative sanction. The complaint was therefore dismissed.