A.M. No. MTJ-04-1528 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-648-MTJ) - INOCENCIO M. MONTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, on the ground of delicadeza and in order that the complainants faith in our Courts of Justice will not be impaired, the complainant having shown lack of faith and trust to ( sic ) the actions of the undersigned and having directly and seriously questioned her actuations, it is respectfully prayed that this judge be allowed to inhibit from trying this case as she is now voluntarily inhibiting herself from further investigating this case. In a Resolution dated February 27, 2002, the Court required the parties to submit their respective memoranda on the matter. The complainant failed to follow the Courts directive and was thereafter required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for such failure in our Resolution of November 11, 2002. For his part, the respondent prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of merit, and thereafter filed two ex-parte motions for the early resolution of the case. In a Resolution dated June 25, 2003, the case was referred back to the OCA which thereafter made the following recommendation: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommends to this Honorable Court that the instant case against respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare, MTC, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija be DISMISSED . It is further recommended that complainant Inocencio M. Montes be HELD in CONTEMPT for his failure to comply with the Courts resolutions dated 27 February 2002 and 11 November 2002 and as such be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000) pesos with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. [21] 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] If, indeed, the complainant was interested in pursuing the case against someone he perceives to be an erring judge, there was nothing to stop him from appearing before the Executive Judge and presenting his evidence and his so-called witnesses to prove hi