FIRST DIVISION
[OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3867-P. October 12, 2020.]
LILIA BASEA-PADULLA AND RODOLFO C. REYES, JR., complainants,vs. EDILBERTO B. DARANTINAO I, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CARIGARA, LEYTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 12, 2020which reads as follows:
"OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3867-P (Lilia Basea-Padulla and Rodolfo C. Reyes, Jr. v. Edilberto B. Darantinao I, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte). — The case stemmed from a Joint Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed by Lilia Basea-Padulla and Rodolfo C. Reyes, Jr. against Edilberto B. Darantinao I, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte for Grave Misconduct, Oppression and Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee.
The complainants averred that on March 23, 2010, respondent Darantinao's son, Brian Darantinao, challenged complainant Reyes to a fistfight, which complainant Reyes merely ignored. Thereafter, Brian returned and suddenly attacked complainant Reyes. 2 Upon the intervention of complainant Reyes' cousins, the altercation came to a halt and Brian left the scene. Subsequently, Brian returned with his father, respondent Darantinao, and allegedly violently kicked open the door of complainant Padulla's house. Once inside, Brian and respondent Darantinao allegedly took turns in mauling complainant Reyes. As a result of the alleged commotion, several items inside the house were damaged with a total worth of Eight Thousand (P8,000.00). 3 Pesos Allegedly, before leaving the house, respondent Darantinao arrogantly uttered to Reyes "Gawas pa dida kay didi ka mahuhuman!" (Get out of there and I will finish you here!) 4
Complainant Reyes further alleged that another incident happened on July 6, 2009, as evidenced by the Certificate 5 of Police Blotter Entry dated April 16, 2010, wherein it was stated therein that respondent Darantinao, without any provocation on the part of complainant Reyes, slapped the head of the latter.
In his Comment, 6 respondent denied the allegations against him. With regard to the alleged fistfight on March 23, 2010, respondent denied that he took part in the brawl. Respondent stated that complainant Reyes chased Brian while the latter was riding a motorcycle. When Brian stopped to park his motorcycle, complainant Reyes boxed Brian. Upon hearing the incident, respondent Darantinao and Brian returned to Padulla's house. While Brian was standing behind respondent Darantinao, complainant Reyes emerged and suddenly boxed Brian. Another fistfight ensued between complainant Reyes and Brian. Respondent claimed that it is highly impossible for him to launch a slight punch, much less inflict the alleged fist blows on complainant Reyes, as the pain in his left arm was so excruciating that he could hardly lift his arm. Further, respondent Darantinao denied uttering the threatening remarks towards complainant Reyes. Respondent Darantinao presented the Affidavit 7 of Victor Sonon wherein Victor denied respondent's participation in the fistfight between Brian and complainant Reyes, and his alleged utterances threatening complainant Reyes.
Anent the alleged incident that happened on July 5, 2009, respondent likewise vehemently denied slapping complainant Reyes. He alleged that on said date, he only asked Reyes about the removal of the unlawful construction of a roof which encroached on his property. Respondent Darantinao presented the Affidavit 8 of Raul Berdejo stating that there is no truth as to the claim of complainant Reyes that the latter was slapped on the head by respondent. Raul stated that after respondent Darantinao requested complainant Reyes to remove the roof, respondent and his son immediately left for home.
In addition, respondent asseverated that at the time of the alleged incidents, he was not performing any official duty as a Court Sheriff. Hence, for lack of factual and legal basis, the charges of grave misconduct, oppression and conduct unbecoming of a court employee against him have no leg to stand on.
On June 17, 2015, the Court, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), issued a Resolution 9 which deferred the resolution of the instant administrative matter until the termination of the criminal cases 10 filed against respondent, pending before the Municipal Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte.
Subsequently, the criminal cases against respondent were dismissed 11 in view of the Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainants. The withdrawal of the criminal complaints was not objected to by the public prosecutor.
On June 1, 2020, the OCA, in its Memorandum, 12 recommended that the instant administrative complainant against Edilberto B. Darantinao I, be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
The OCA noted that the criminal charges filed against respondent were all dismissed due to complainants' withdrawal of the same. The OCA explained that since the criminal complaints were withdrawn by complainants, there was no determination as to the criminal liability of respondent and such determination is vital for the Office to fully evaluate the instant administrative complaint. Moreover, it found that complainants themselves stated that the filing of the criminal charges was brought about by the sheer misunderstanding between the parties. Thus, the OCA concluded that in view of the dismissal of the criminal charges against respondent Darantinao, the instant administrative complaint must also be dismissed, considering that the acts complained of against Darantinao have not been proven, both in the criminal proceeding before the trial court and in the administrative proceeding. 13 Moreover, the OCA elucidated that the police blotter report submitted by complainants Padulla and Reyes cannot be the sole basis for any administrative liability against respondent Darantinao. Hence, the OCA recommended the case to be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.
The Court's Ruling
We agree with the findings of fact and the recommendation of the OCA. However, We take exception in the OCA's determination, that the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed in view of the dismissal of the criminal cases against respondent Darantinao.
Administrative cases are, as a rule, independent from criminal proceedings. The dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence or the acquittal of an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding nor carry with it relief from administrative liability. 14 Hence, it is of no moment that the criminal cases against respondent Darantinao were dismissed.
Nonetheless, the instant complaint must still fail for complainants' failure to adduce sufficient and concrete evidence to substantiate their accusations against respondent.
In administrative cases involving judicial officers, the complainants always carried on their shoulders the burden of proof to substantiate their allegations through substantial evidence. That standard of substantial evidence is satisfied only when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of although such evidence may not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 15 Hence, when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit. 16
In this case, a judicious review of the records would show that complainants failed to provide adequate support to sustain their allegations against respondent Darantinao. Aside from the Certificate of Police Blotter Entry presented by complainants, there is no showing that respondent committed the infractions complained thereof as to warrant a charge for grave misconduct, oppression and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. It is well settled that entries in the police blotter should not be given undue significance or probative value as they are not evidence of the truth of their contents but merely of the fact that they were recorded. Hence, they do not constitute conclusive proof. 17 As aptly found by the OCA, no other evidence was submitted by complainants that would prove their allegations.
Considering that there is a dearth of substantial evidence in this case, it follows that the administrative complaint against respondent Darantinao should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Edilberto B. Darantinao I, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte for Grave Misconduct, Oppression and Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee is hereby DISMISSED for failure of complainants to substantiate the charges.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2794 dated October 9, 2020.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id. at 1-3.
4.Id. at 3.
5.Id. at 39.
6.Id. at 44-55.
7.Id. at 69.
8.Id. at 72-73.
9.Id. at 77.
10. Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-035-CR, entitled People of the Philippines v. Edilberto Darantinao, et al., for qualified trespass to dwelling; Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-036-CR, entitled People of the Philippines v. Edilberto Darantinao, et al., for slight physical injuries; and Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-037-CR, entitled People of the Philippines v. Edilberto Darantinao, et al., for grave threats.
11. Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-035-CR was dismissed in the Order dated August 15, 2016, while Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-036-CR and Criminal Case No. M-CAR-2010-037-CR were dismissed in the Order dated March 13, 2017.
12.Rollo, pp. 112-115.
13.Id. at 115.
14.Dr. Barillo v. Hon. Gervacio, 532 Phil. 267, 279 (2006).
15.Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, et al., 680 Phil. 467, 477 (2012).
16.Dr. De Jesus v. Guerrero III, et al., 614 Phil. 520, 529 (2009).
17.People v. Cabrera, Jr., 450 Phil. 356, 367 (2003).