A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640 - ATTY. HERMOGENES DATUIN, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANDRES B. SORIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN.

Ruling

accordingly forwarded to the CA the record of the case which was raffled to CA Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes for investigation, report and recommendation. After conducting a hearing on September 19, 2001, the Investigating Justice submitted a REPORT on May 2, 2002 partly stating as follows: After a circumspect reading of the records, We find nothing in the conduct of the respondent that would warrant any punitive action from the High Court . Outside his naked assertions, the imputation of impartiality against the public respondent was not amply substantiated by the complainant. In this regard, it needs to be underscored that in administrative cases akin to the instant controversy, it is the complainant who totes the burden of proving the respondent judges liability ( Concepcion v. Vela, Adm. Matter No. 309-MJ, May 31, 1976, 71 SCRA 133 ). The evidence presented [is] not sufficiently convincing to compel the exercise of the disciplinary powers of the Supreme Court. We cannot simply syllogize on the culpability of the respondent judge on the basis of evidence which [is], at best, inconclusive and conjectural. (Italics supplied). x x x x x x x x x Under pain of redundancy, the evidence proffered by the complainant, which consists chiefly of suppositions and uncorroborated statements, fall[s] short to discharge the compulsory burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Collectively, [it] fail[s] to establish that the public respondent was indeed inspired by any selfish intent and that he bore personal bias which is susceptible to obscure the merits of the case, betray the respondents objectivity and jeopardize his sense of judgment. The fact that even before an administrative case was filed against the respondent judge, he had already inhibited himself from the case belies the claim that he was partial to the complainants and that he took special interest in the property subject of the litigation . (Italics supplied). The Investigating Justice thus recommended the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. The recommendation is well-taken. It is settled that in administrative proceedings the complainant has the burden of proving, in general by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [1] This complainant failed to discharge. The Motion for Disqualification filed by complainant had already been granted by respondent, before the former lodged his letter-complaint, in order, to use respondents words, to assure the parties that the civil case will be heard and tried without regard to personalities. With respect to complainants allegation that respondent yelled at him, absent evidence as to its content as well as the circumstances under which it was made, its import cannot be appreciated, hence, this Court cannot be so rash as to condemn respondent to punitive action. Neither can this Court fault respondent on the basis of his intimation that should there be a buyer of the property subject of the civil case, the buyer must b