ATTY. JESSIE TULDAGUE AND ATTY. ALFREDO BALAJO, JR., COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE MOISES PARDO AND JAIME CALPATURA, LEGAL RESEARCHER AND OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, CABARROGUIS, QUIRINO.

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that: 1. the charge of corruption against respondents Judge Moises M. Pardo (now retired), formerly of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, and Jaime B. Calpatura, Legal Researcher of the said court, as well as the charges of demanding money or live animals in exchange for indorsing applicants for vacant positions and taking of court property against respondent Judge Pardo, be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence; 2. Judge Pardo be FINED in the amount of P20,000.00 for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which shall be deducted from his retirement benefits; and 3. the matter regarding the judicial audit conducted in Branches 31 and 32 of the Regional Trial Court, Cabarroguis, Quirino be now considered CLOSED and TERMINATED, insofar as Judge Pardo is concerned. [21] The Ruling of the Court The Court agrees with the recommendations of the OCA but modifies the amount of the recommended fine. In administrative proceedings, the complainants bear the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [22] Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of judicial duty. [23] In A.M. No. RTJ-05-1962, complainants Tuldague and Balajo bear the burden of proving their allegations against Judge Pardo, which we limited to three acts: (a) corruption through, among others, sharing of cash bonds; (b) demanding money or live animals in exchange for endorsing applicants for vacant positions; and (c) taking of court property specifically two big cans of coat master paint allocated for the painting of the Hall of Justice. Since the charges hurled against Judge Pardo are grave in nature, the evidence against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [24] However, as the OCA observed, complainants did not have direct knowledge of their charges and merely relied on their witnesses to testify on the alleged wrongful acts of Judge Pardo. To determine the credibility and probative weight of the testimony of a witness, such testimony must be considered in its entirety and not in truncated parts. [25] To determine which contradicting statements of a witness are to prevail as to the truth, the other evidence received must be considered. [26] On the charge of corruption, complainants only presented Rosendo to testify that he gave P6,000.00 to Judge Pardo in the latters house. He alleged that he likewise gave P3,000.00 to Calpatura, through Dominador. However, Rosendos statements remain uncorroborated as he did not present Alonzo, who allegedly saw him give the money to Judge Pardo. On the other hand, Judge Pardo presented Fr. Lazo, who testified that he did not see Rosendo give money to Judge Pardo in his house. Calpatura likewise presented Dominado