Lawyerly

AM OCA IPI NO. 06-97-CA-J

2006-05-02

NORMANDY R. BAUTISTA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is likewise a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence falls on the complainant. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[5] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before a judge can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[6] Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a graver offense, the evidence against the magistrate sought to be held liable should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[7]

AM NO. P-05-2097

2005-12-15

MIKROSTAR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. FE MABALOT

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The Court agrees that the respondent should not be held administratively liable in this instance. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint falls on the complainant.[5] The allegations in the complaint must be proven with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[6] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[7]

AM No. CA-05-43

2005-07-08

RAFAEL RONDINA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELOY R. BELLO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, it is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[5] Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[6] Hence, when the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery, relying merely on conjectures and suppositions, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.[7] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[8]

AM OCA IPI NO. 04-72-CA-J

2005-07-08

RAFAEL RONDINA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELOY R. BELLO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, it is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[5] Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[6] Hence, when the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery, relying merely on conjectures and suppositions, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.[7] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[8]

AM No. P-02-1557

2004-12-08

CENON R. ALFONSO v. ARMANDO B. IGNACIO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint.[10] The complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[11] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[12]

AM No. MTJ-04-1534

2004-09-07

EMELIE TAGUBA LUCERO v. JUDGE FELINO U. BANGALAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

However, we find no basis to hold the respondent judge administratively liable for Rendering an Unjust Judgment and violation of Republic Act No. 6713. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence.[26] In this case, the complainant failed to substantiate her charges that respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment and that he violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[27]

AM No. RTJ-04-1847

2004-07-21

AURELIO M. SIERRA v. JUDGE PATERNO G. TIAMSON

CALLEJO, SR., J.

However, it is equally true that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[7] While the desistance of witnesses themselves does not operate to divest this Court from investigating a matter involving its personnel,[8] it is equally true that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[9]

AM No. RTJ-04-1854

2004-06-08

ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA v. JUDGE GALICANO C. ARRIESGADO

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

…The Rules, even in an administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[10] The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after the presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.[11] The absence of any evidence showing that respondents acted culpably reduces the charges against them into a mere indictment. We cannot, however, give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[12]

AM No. SB-04-11-J

2004-02-13

LEONIDES T. CORTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[27] In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the part of the respondent justices. The complainant failed to substantiate his claim of corruption and bribery, and merely relied on mere conjectures and suppositions. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[28]

AM No. MTJ-04-1528.

2004-02-06

INOCENCIO M. MONTES v. JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We agree. It must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[22] In this case, the complainant failed to substantiate the charges he made against the respondent judge, let alone appear before the investigating magistrate to prove his allegations. Although it is a settled rule that even the desistance of witnesses themselves does not operate to divest this Court from investigating a matter involving its personnel,[23] it is equally true that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[24]

AM No. RTJ-03-1755

2003-07-03

JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE AMALIA F. DY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the part of respondent judge. Indeed, the charge against her is based on nothing more than complainant's suspicion that Atty. Cosico "perhaps used `inducements other than legal that touched the heart and soul' of Judge Dy."[16] However, we can not give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[17]

	AM OCA IPI NO. 06-97-CA-J 2006-05-02	NORMANDY R. BAUTISTA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is likewise a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence falls on the complainant. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[5] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before a judge can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[6] Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a graver offense, the evidence against the magistrate sought to be held liable should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[7]
	AM NO. P-05-2097 2005-12-15	MIKROSTAR INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. FE MABALOT CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court agrees that the respondent should not be held administratively liable in this instance. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint falls on the complainant.[5] The allegations in the complaint must be proven with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him or her should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[6] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[7]
	AM No. CA-05-43 2005-07-08	RAFAEL RONDINA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELOY R. BELLO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, it is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[5] Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[6] Hence, when the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery, relying merely on conjectures and suppositions, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.[7] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[8]
	AM OCA IPI NO. 04-72-CA-J 2005-07-08	RAFAEL RONDINA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELOY R. BELLO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, it is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[5] Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[6] Hence, when the complainant fails to substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery, relying merely on conjectures and suppositions, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.[7] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[8]
	AM No. P-02-1557 2004-12-08	CENON R. ALFONSO v. ARMANDO B. IGNACIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint.[10] The complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[11] Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[12]
	AM No. MTJ-04-1534 2004-09-07	EMELIE TAGUBA LUCERO v. JUDGE FELINO U. BANGALAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, we find no basis to hold the respondent judge administratively liable for Rendering an Unjust Judgment and violation of Republic Act No. 6713. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence.[26] In this case, the complainant failed to substantiate her charges that respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment and that he violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[27]
	AM No. RTJ-04-1847 2004-07-21	AURELIO M. SIERRA v. JUDGE PATERNO G. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
However, it is equally true that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[7] While the desistance of witnesses themselves does not operate to divest this Court from investigating a matter involving its personnel,[8] it is equally true that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[9]
	AM No. RTJ-04-1854 2004-06-08	ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA v. JUDGE GALICANO C. ARRIESGADO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
…The Rules, even in an administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[10] The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after the presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.[11] The absence of any evidence showing that respondents acted culpably reduces the charges against them into a mere indictment. We cannot, however, give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[12]
	AM No. SB-04-11-J 2004-02-13	LEONIDES T. CORTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICES MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO CALLEJO, SR., J.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[27] In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the part of the respondent justices. The complainant failed to substantiate his claim of corruption and bribery, and merely relied on mere conjectures and suppositions. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[28]
	AM No. MTJ-04-1528. 2004-02-06	INOCENCIO M. MONTES v. JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree. It must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a respondent judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[22] In this case, the complainant failed to substantiate the charges he made against the respondent judge, let alone appear before the investigating magistrate to prove his allegations. Although it is a settled rule that even the desistance of witnesses themselves does not operate to divest this Court from investigating a matter involving its personnel,[23] it is equally true that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[24]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1755 2003-07-03	JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE AMALIA F. DY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the part of respondent judge. Indeed, the charge against her is based on nothing more than complainant's suspicion that Atty. Cosico "perhaps used `inducements other than legal that touched the heart and soul' of Judge Dy."[16] However, we can not give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[17]

MAYOR OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. JUDGE AMADO A. DE VERA