AM RTJ 05 1942; (July, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-05-1942. July 28, 2005.
RESTITUTO L. OPIS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BOAC, MARINDUQUE, BRANCH 94, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Restituto L. Opis, counsel for Gregorio Red in Civil Case No. 00-5, charged Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano with gross inefficiency, serious misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion. The charges stemmed from the judge’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on July 19, 2000, enjoining the implementation of a cockpit franchise awarded to Opis’s client. The complainant alleged the TRO was timed to disrupt a scheduled cockpit derby on July 20, 2000. Subsequently, the respondent judge issued an order on August 15, 2000, voluntarily inhibiting himself not only from Civil Case No. 00-5 but from all cases handled by the complainant pending in his sala. The complainant argued this was retaliatory and caused undue delay, as these cases were not calendared for hearing until a new judge was appointed. Additional charges included failure to properly notify the Court of a judge’s death, selective inhibition in another personal case, habitual absenteeism, and violation of raffle rules by not raffling Civil Case No. 00-5.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano is administratively liable for gross inefficiency, serious misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion based on the allegations.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED all charges for lack of merit. On the TRO issuance, the Court found the judge complied with procedural requirements under Rule 58, and the complainant failed to substantiate claims of improper timing or sinister motive. The order of inhibition, while broad, was subsequently rectified and its merits had already been addressed by the Court in a prior administrative matter; thus, it could not be revisited. The charge of habitual absenteeism was deemed a bare allegation unsupported by evidence. Regarding the failure to raffle the case, the Court noted that during the filing period, Branch 38 was vacant and Judge Dimaano, as the only presiding judge in the two-branch station, necessarily acted as the pairing judge. Therefore, raffle would not have altered the case assignment, and there was no showing of willful violation or bad faith. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant, who must establish the allegations with substantial evidence. The complainant failed to meet this burden.