FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 17-2946-MTJ. November 3, 2020.]
RETCHIE MAE R. CABADONGA, complainant, vs. HON. KIM E. ORTIZ-LIQUIDO, PRESIDING JUDGE, MTCC, BISLIG CITY, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 3, 2020 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 17-2946-MTJ — RETCHIE MAE R. CABADONGA, complainant, versusHON. KIM E. ORTIZ-LIQUIDO, PRESIDING JUDGE, MTCC, BISLIG CITY, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondent.
After a careful review of the records and evidence presented by the parties, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to dismiss the instant complaint for Grave Misconduct and Oppression against Hon. Kim E. Ortiz-Liquido, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bislig City, Surigao del Sur.
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 1 Moreover, the fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his complaint. 2
In this case, the Court agrees with the OCA that the evidence adduced by complainant is insufficient to justify the imposition of administrative sanctions upon respondent. Moreover, the OCA is correct in stating that the allegations raised by complainant involve factual issues, the veracity of which should be determined m the criminal cases already filed in court.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against Hon. Kim E. Ortiz-Liquido is DISMISSED.
The "Sinumpaang Sumbong Salaysay" dated October 5, 2017 (with enclosures) of Retchie Mae R. Cabadonga charging Presiding Judge Kim E. Ortiz-Liquido with grave misconduct and oppression; the comment (with enclosures) of Presiding Judge Kim E. Ortiz-Liquido on the complaint; and the Report dated February 21, 2020 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Reyes v. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360 (2016). See also OCA v. Presiding Judge Ruiz, 780 Phil. 133, 155-156 (2016).
2.Rizaldo v. Presiding Judge Bollozos, 811 Phil. 20, 33 (2017).