FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 18-3003-MTJ. December 2, 2021.]
JOSELITO K. ECHAVEZ, complainant,vs. HON. ROLAND DENNIS G. MOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, 1ST MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GAMAY-LAPINIG-MAPANAG, NORTHERN SAMAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 3, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 18-3003-MTJ — JOSELITO K. ECHAVEZ,complainant, versus HON. ROLAND DENNIS G. MOLINA, PRESIDING JUDGE, 1ST MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GAMAY-LAPINIG-MAPANAG, NORTHERN SAMAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 3, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA,respondent.
After a careful review of the records and evidence submitted by the parties, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to: 1) dismiss the administrative complaint filed by Joselito K. Echavez (Echavez) against Hon. Roland Dennis G. Molina (Judge Molina); and 2) direct Echavez to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing this clearly baseless and unfounded administrative complaint.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. 1 The complainant's failure to substantiate his claims will lead to the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail. 2
Here, the Court agrees with the OCA that the allegations in this administrative complaint are completely bereft of merit and basis.
With regard to the alleged alteration of the January 17, 2018 Minutes of the hearing, the OCA pointed out that the contents of said minutes were reflected in the January 17, 2018 Order which states that Marivel Echavez would be the next witness. Yet, this Order was never questioned by Echavez prior to this administrative complaint. Moreover, during the May 7, 2018 hearing, Echavez's counsel did not interpose any objection to the presentation of Marivel Echavez as the next witness and even cross-examined her, which runs counter to the allegation that they did not know that she would be testifying.
As for the contention that Judge Molina initiated the stipulation on the due execution of the medico-legal certificate, the same deserves scant consideration. The records readily show that it was the prosecution, not Judge Molina, that initiated the stipulation regarding the medical certificate. 3
On the issue that Judge Molina allegedly blocked the cross-examination of Marivel Echavez in relation to the CCTV footage, the same is likewise bereft of merit. As found by the OCA:
x x x An examination of the related TSN reveals the falsity of such claim. Initially, the defense counsel asked Marivel Echavez about her statement that the CCTV footage was edited when she had not yet seen the CCTV footage. However, the defense counsel then asked: "Now, Madam Witness[,] you would admit that in the CCTV it was you Marivel and Shirley who [were] trying to approach and utter [a] statement against the [accused]." It was only then, and upon objection of the prosecution that respondent Judge stated, "Attorney, the CCTV is not with the Court. She has not yet seen the CCTV so how could you cross-examine this witness[?] [A]ccording to her she has not yet seen the CCTV footages so go to another point." The court found such line of questioning to be improper considering that Marivel Echavez had not seen nor been shown such CCTV footage. 4
Lastly, Echavez failed to present any evidence to prove that Judge Molina falsified the January 17, 2018 Order. 5
At this juncture, it should be underscored that litigants who file baseless charges against judges degrade the judicial office and unduly interfere with the performance of their work. 6 Thus, in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, 7 the Court resolved that:
x x x If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the OCA found that the allegations of Echavez in his complaint are completely bereft of merit and basis. 8 Additionally, Judge Molina points out that Echavez has a propensity to file motions for inhibition and administrative cases against judges and lawyers handling his case. 9 Indeed, in a January 19, 2021 Resolution in OCA IPI No. 19-3052-MTJ, 10 the Court dismissed another administrative complaint filed by Echavez against a judge for being baseless and unfounded. Considering the foregoing, the Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA to direct Echavez to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court for filing a clearly baseless complaint.
When an administrative charge against judges or court personnel has no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, the Court will not hesitate to protect them against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes. While the Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. 11
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against respondent JUDGE ROLAND DENNIS G. MOLINA is DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. Complainant JOSELITO K. ECHAVEZ is hereby required to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing a baseless and unfounded administrative complaint against respondent, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
The complaint-affidavit dated September 5, 2018 (with enclosures) of Joselito K. Echavez, charging Presiding Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 3, Manila, with grave abuse of discretion and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility relative to Criminal Case No. 488125-CR entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Joselito Echavez"; the comment (with enclosures) of Acting Presiding Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina; the reply (with enclosures) of Joselito K. Echavez to the comment and opposition on the complaint dated November 26, 2018; the rejoinder (with enclosures) of Acting Presiding Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina; the comment and opposition (with enclosures) of Joselito K. Echavez to the rejoinder; the reply of Acting Presiding Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina to the comment and opposition to the rejoinder; the position paper dated December 28, 2018 (with enclosure) of Joselito K. Echavez; the position paper dated January 10, 2019 (with enclosures) of Acting Presiding Judge Roland Dennis G. Molina; the letter dated May 29, 2019 of Joselito K . Echavez praying for immediate action to investigate the delay and expedite the investigation of his complaints (OCA IPI No. 18-3003-MTJ, OCA IPI No. 19-3037-MTJ and A.C. No. 12264); and the Report dated January 8, 2021 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.Rico v. Salutan, A.C. No. 9257, March 5, 2018, 857 SCRA 195, 200.
2.Re: Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, IPI No. 17-267-CA-J, April 24, 2018, 862 SCRA 549, 558.
3.Rollo, p. 69.
4.Id. at 268.
5.Id. at 269.
6.Re: Ongjoco, OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, January 31, 2012, 664 SCRA 465, 476.
7. Resolution Prescribing Measures to Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints, issued October 14, 2003.
8.Rollo, p. 269.
9.Id. at 31.
10.Echavez v. Boling-Sanchez, January 19, 2021 (Unsigned Resolution).
11.Tan Tiac Chiong v. Cosico, A.M. No. CA-02-33, 385 SCRA 509, 519.