A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2183 [FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 05-2346-RTJ] - CONCERNED LAWYERS OF BULACAN, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, RTC, BRANCH 10, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly finds the OCA recommendation to dismiss well-taken. The burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court officials and employees falls on the complainant, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly performed her duties will prevail. Moreover, in the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. In fact, an administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that the respondent stands to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment. The Court does not thus give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation. [8] The Court, however, finds well-taken the audit team's observation that Branch 10 lacks proper monitoring of cases. While respondent provided the Court the latest issued orders in all but one (Criminal Case No. 1385-M-2004) of the listed cases, she failed to justify her failure to act on the incidents thereon despite the lapse of a considerable period. Respondent offered no explanation for the delay in the resolution of the incidents in the cases. She simply furnished their status, some of which involve decisions or orders issued after the conduct of the judicial audit and mostly beyond the prescribed 90-day period, [9] without her having requested extension for the purpose. Notably, respondent failed to explain her inaction for allowing a hiatus of at least one year in Civil Case No. 714-M-2002 and eight months in Civil Case No. 195-M-2006, she appearing to have merely waited for the submission of a comment on/opposition to a motion for reconsideration, and a reply, if any. Moreover, respecting the orders or decisions purportedly dated before July 31, 2007 , the start of the judicial audit, respondent gave no reason why those issuances were not presented or made available to the audit team during the four-day judicial audit ending on August 3, 2007 . It bears emphasis that the responsibility of making a physical inventory of cases primarily rests on the presiding judge, even as he/she is provided with a court staff, and a branch clerk of court who shall take steps to meet the requirements of the directives on docket inventory. [10] Why respondent failed to make a complete report to the audit team, the court cannot fathom, despite the clear mandate of Administrative Circular No. 10-94 [11] for the performance of a semestral physical inventory of the court's docket which, for the first semester of 2007, should have been conducted by June 30, a full month prior to the start on July 31, 2007 of the judicial audit. What was instead presented to the audit team was a docket inventory of cases for the period from July 2006 to December 2006 .