A.M. No. RTJ-04-1884 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1806-RTJ) - SILAS Y. CAÑADA, Complainant, vs. ILDEFONSO B. SUERTE, former Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Barili, Cebu City, Branch 60.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that [respondent] be perpetually disqualified from being reinstated or appointed to any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporation. [15] While this case was pending, respondent was dismissed from the service in Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu promulgated in 2004. [16] The Court found him guilty of gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and incompetence. [17] Aside from dismissal, his retirement benefits and privileges were also forfeited with prejudice to being reinstated in any branch of government service, including government-owned and controlled agencies or corporations. [18] In 2005 after respondent was dismissed, we resolved Cañada v. Suerte , [19] a different case involving the same parties. It arose from a complaint dated November 8, 2003 wherein complainant charged respondent with arbitrary detention punished under Article 124 of the RPC for having issued an order citing him with direct contempt and ordering his arrest and detention for 14 days without bail. We found respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and rules of procedure and imposed on him the maximum fine of P40,000 considering that he had earlier been dismissed from the service. It appears that the aforequoted case is intimately connected to the present case. In his comment, respondent stated that he issued an order for the arrest of complainant for direct contempt because the latter filed a petition for certiorari and used as grounds the false allegations contained in his complaint. He also mentioned that complainant was detained in jail. Thus it can be surmised that the 2005 decision tackled respondent's act of causing complainant's unlawful detention while this complaint pertained to his acts prior to the detention. The findings and evaluation of the OCA are well-taken. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [20] If a judge should be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [21] Here, complainant failed to present concrete evidence to substantiate his charges against respondent. He did not appear before the investigating justice to prove his allegations. [22] While it is true that he attached to his complaint two affidavits to corroborate his story, the affiantsa prospective business partner and an AFP comradewere not disinterested witnesses whose statements could be given credence. Mere allegations will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. [23] This is in line with the well-settled rule that an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented on the witness stand. [24] If, indeed, complainant was interested in pursuing the c