AM P 07 2294; (August, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-07-2294; August 7, 2007
Judge Anatalio S. Necesario vs. Myner B. Dinglasa, Process Server
FACTS
Judge Anatalio S. Necesario filed an administrative complaint against Myner B. Dinglasa, a Process Server of the MTCC, Cebu City, for Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL), Incompetence, Dereliction of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service. The complainant alleged that respondent failed to comply with a memorandum directing him to report to the Office of the Clerk of Court and to answer complaints against him, resulting in his being placed on AWOL for April 2004. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment on the complaint. Despite two directives and a subsequent Supreme Court Resolution ordering him to show cause and submit his comment, respondent failed to comply. All court notices sent to his address were returned unserved with notations like “RTS-DISMISSED” or “RTS Moved,” and he did not inform the Court of any change of address.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Myner B. Dinglasa should be held administratively liable for the charges against him and for his failure to comply with the directives of the OCA and the Supreme Court.
RULING
The administrative complaint for AWOL and dereliction of duty is dismissed for lack of merit. However, respondent is fined for gross insubordination due to his failure to comply with lawful directives. The Court emphasized that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant to substantiate allegations by substantial evidence. Mere allegations are not proof. Since complainant failed to present such evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties prevails. Furthermore, the Court noted that respondent had already been dropped from the rolls effective December 8, 2004, in a separate resolution (A.M. No. 05-8-228-MTCC) for being on AWOL—a non-disciplinary action distinct from dismissal.
Nevertheless, the Court found respondent administratively liable for gross insubordination. His blatant refusal to submit his comment despite repeated directives from the OCA and the Supreme Court constituted a disregard of judicial authority and an affront to the Court’s administrative oversight. The Court ruled that resolutions requiring comment are not mere requests but lawful orders essential to preserving the integrity of the judiciary. Failure to comply demonstrates indifference and warrants disciplinary sanction. Accordingly, while the main complaint was dismissed, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) to be deducted from any remaining benefits due to respondent.