AM SCc 03 08; (June, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. SCC-03-08; June 16, 2003
Ermelyn A. Limbona, Complainant, vs. Judge Casan Ali Limbona, Shari’a Circuit Court, Tamparan, Lanao del Sur, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ermelyn A. Limbona, who is married to respondent Judge Casan Ali Limbona, filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming a member of the Bar and Officer of the Court. She alleged that the judge abandoned her twice, first in 1992 when she was pregnant and again in 2000 when he returned to his former wife. She also charged that he filed a certificate of candidacy for the 1998 party-list elections while still performing his judicial functions and collecting his salary.
The respondent judge submitted the complainant’s affidavit of desistance, wherein she stated she filed the complaint due to a marital rift and a desire for a settlement under Islamic practice. She declared that a proper Muslim settlement had been achieved through elders, they were living cordially, and she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that the separate issue regarding candidacy and salary was already pending in another administrative case (A.M. No. SCC-98-4).
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Casan Ali Limbona should be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct based on the allegations in the complaint.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for Grave Misconduct for lack of evidence. While administrative proceedings are not strictly bound by formal rules of evidence, due process requires that charges, especially those penal in character like grave misconduct, must be substantiated by competent evidence. The complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence.
In this case, the complainant failed to attend scheduled hearings before the OCA and offered no evidence to support her serious accusations. Her subsequent affidavit of desistance, which the respondent presented, effectively recanted her allegations. With no independently verifiable proof presented, the Court found an utter lack of evidence to hold the respondent administratively liable. Regarding the charge of filing a candidacy while serving as judge, the Court referred it for possible consolidation with the already pending administrative matter (A.M. No. SCC-98-4) before the Third Division, as recommended by the OCA.