A.M. No. RTJ-25-099 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4879-RTJ] - CORPUS B. ALZATE, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. RAPHIEL F. ALZATE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 1, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BANGUED, ABRA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , the Judicial Integrity Board respectfully RECOMMENDS to the Honorable Supreme Court that: (1) the instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against former Presiding Judge Raphiel F. Alzate, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Bangued, Abra; and (2) former Presiding Judge Raphiel F. Alzate be found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct constituting violation of Section 5, Canon III of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and [be] meted with the penalty of FINE in the amount of [PHP] 100,000.00, payable within three (3) months from promulgation of judgment. [53] (Emphasis in the original) While the JIB affirmed the findings of the OED, it found respondent guilty of simple misconduct and increased the fine imposed on respondent in view of his previous administrative liabilities, pursuant to Rule 140, Section 20 [54] of the Rules of Court, as amended. The Court's Ruling After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds the Report of the JIB well-taken, subject to the following discussion. In Zara v. Joyas , [55] We held: In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. After all, basic is the rule that mere allegation is not equivalent to proof and charges based on mere suspicion, speculation or conclusion cannot be given credence. [56] (Citations omitted) In Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Pintac , [57] the Court defined gross or grave misconduct as: [A] serious transgression of some established and definite rule of action, such as unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or employee, that tends to threaten the very existence of the system of administration of justice an official or employee serves. It may manifest itself in corruption, or in other similar acts, done with the clear intent to violate the law or in flagrant disregard of established rules. [58] While dishonesty is defined as "a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray." [59] Here, complainant failed to prove that respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty in deciding Villanueva and Bermudez . He also failed to prove that respondent is involved in corrupt activities in deciding nullity of marriage cases filed before the RTC-Branch 58. We quote with approval the following discussion of the JIB: Scrutinizing the records, there was no substantial evidenc