EN BANC
[A.M. No. 17-09-10-SC. April 10, 2019.]
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ALBERTO C. YAP AGAINST ATTY. LOURDES C. PERFECTO, CLERK OF COURT OF THE SECOND DIVISION, SUPREME COURT
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 10, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. 17-09-10-SC (RE: Letter-Complaint of Atty. Alberto C. Yap against Atty. Lourdes C. Perfecto, Clerk of Court of the Second Division, Supreme Court) — In a letter dated June 8, 2017, Atty. Alberto C. Yap alleged that Second Division Clerk of Court Atty. Ma. Lourdes Perfecto issued minute resolutions in G.R. No. 211496 entitled "Atty. Alberto C. Yap, CPA, and People of the Philippines v. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales which were "indeed bogus, nothing but Money for Reconsideration in the Money-Making modus operandi." 1
In her Comment on the Letter Dated 08 June 2017 of Atty. Alberto C. Yap, 2 Atty. Perfecto countered that the letter-complaint was an off-shoot of the cases filed by complainant Atty. Yap entitled "Atty. Alberto C. Yap v. Conchita Morales, et al.," under UDK-14972, a petition for writ of amparo/mandamus and "Atty. Alberto C. Yap, CPA, and People of the Philippines v. Conchita Carpio Morales," docketed as G.R. No. 211496, a petition for review on writ of amparo; that the Court dismissed UDK-14972 due to a faulty verification and for being an improper remedy; that the Court also dismissed G.R. No. 211496 for being in the nature of a motion for reconsideration and for having been filed out of time; and that the complainant's allegations that the minute resolutions were bogus and issued for financial gain showed that he was not abreast with the internal procedures of the Court.
We DISMISS the administrative complaint.
It is settled rule that the quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is that of substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3 Also, it is a basic legal precept that he who alleges must prove; 4 and that mere allegation, by itself, would not be given weight because it does not amount to evidence. 5 HSAcaE
Herein complainant failed to specifically aver and prove any misdeed that may have been committed by Atty. Perfecto. Notably, the complainant's one-page letter failed to contain any elaboration on the alleged money-making modus operandi that Atty. Perfecto had employed in issuing the alleged bogus minute resolutions. Such bare allegations without any iota of evidence do not merit the Court's consideration.
More importantly, the Court finds as untenable the complainant's allegation that Atty. Perfecto had issued bogus minute resolutions. In Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, 6 We explained that to facilitate prompt dispatch of court actions, the Court has tasked the Clerk of Court to send copies of minute resolutions to the concerned parties by quoting verbatim the resolutions that We have promulgated, thus:
For a prompt dispatch of actions of the Court, minute resolutions are promulgated by the Court through the Clerk of Court, who takes charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned by quoting verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case. It is the Clerk of Court's duty to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting the resolution adopted by the Court. The Clerk of Court never participates in the deliberations of a case. All decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court. The Clerk of Court merely transmits the Court's action. This was explained in the case — G.R. No. 56280, "Rhine Marketing Corp. v. Felix Gravante, et al.," where, in a resolution dated July 6, 1981, the Court said — "[M]inute resolutions of this Court denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions like the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of this Court, which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns, which should be known to counsel. When a petition is denied or dismissed by this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions.
There being no sufficient basis to hold Atty. Perfecto liable for abuse of authority, the administrative complaint should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, We DISMISS the administrative complaint against Atty. Ma. Lourdes C. Perfecto for lack of sufficient basis and thereby consider this case CLOSED and TERMINATED." Del Castillo, J., on official leave. Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave. Jardeleza, J., on official leave. (adv3) HESIcT
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 4.
2.Id. at 12-15.
3.Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, January 18, 2011, 639 SCRA 633, 637.
4.Lagman v. Pimentel III, G.R. Nos. 235935, 236061, 236145 and 236155, February 6, 2018.
5.ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014, 734 SCRA 76, 84.
6. G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1, 5-6.