Velasquez v. Rimas

FIRST DIVISION

[OCA IPI No. 18-4864-P. May 14, 2021.]

PRESIDING JUDGE GREGORIO M. VELASQUEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 35, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, complainant, vs.COURT LEGAL RESEARCHER II ELNORA P. RIMAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 35, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"OCA IPI No. 18-4864-P (Presiding Judge Gregorio M. Velasquez, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Calamba City, Laguna, complainant, vs. Court Legal Researcher II Elnora P. Rimas, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Calamba City, Laguna, respondent). — In his Report 1 dated 02 August 2018, addressed to Executive Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Calamba City, Laguna, Judge Gregorio M. Velasquez (Judge Velasquez) of Branch 35, RTC-Calamba accused Mrs. Elnora P. Rimas (Rimas), his Legal Researcher II of acting in a manner prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary, to the court and to the service by engaging in a clear case of conflict of interest. Allegedly, Rimas practically lawyered for and harbored a fugitive accused of homicide, by knowingly passing on a wrong and false information about the court's official responsibilities. According to Judge Velasquez, Rimas' acts put him in a bad light and posed danger to his life and safety.

Judge Velasquez averred that sometime in the third week of June 2018, Rimas personally approached and asked him if he could favorably act on a motion for cancellation of bail bond by the bondswoman of Arthur M. Plaza (Plaza), the principal accused in a case for homicide. He informed Rimas that the motion could not be acted upon unless the accused surrenders voluntarily to the proper authority. Moreover, he advised Rimas, in the presence of the Branch Clerk of Court, to tell the movant to consult a lawyer or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) on what to do under the circumstances.

A few days after the incident, Judge Velasquez received an information from a reliable source that he caught the ire of Plaza who threatened to kill him. It was at this time that Judge Velasquez remembered his conversation with Rimas. He later learned that Rimas and Plaza were not only cousins but likewise, the former's husband is the close kumpare of the latter. AScHCD

Rimas, in her Comment 2 dated 19 November 2018, denied the accusation. She claimed that Judge Velasquez muddled the facts and twisted the truth in order to conform to his belief that she had conspired with Plaza to kill him. Judge Velasquez had an axe to grind against her since 2015 because of the administrative case filed by a certain Evelyn Canceran against him.

After Judge Velasquez submitted his Reply, 3 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the instant complaint and submitted its Report 4 dated 28 January 2021, recommending its dismissal for lack of merit.

The Court finds the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA well-taken. In recommending the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint, the OCA made the following observations and evaluation, to wit:

The complaint against respondent is bereft of merit. The complaint is simply anchored on complainant Judge's allegations that respondent gave a wrong information to the accused in a criminal case.

In the case at bar, the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged improper actuations by the respondent were not clearly established by the complainant Judge as expressed in his written statements. Complainant Judge merely relied heavily on the fact that accused Plaza is the kumpare of respondent's husband. In fact, complainant Judge mentioned in his reply that the alleged threat on his life was merely hearsay. Moreover, respondent's remarks during the staff meeting presided by complainant Judge that he did not act on the motion to post bail filed by the accused for three (3) weeks did not automatically mean that she relayed the same to accused Plaza. On the other hand, respondent denied that she fed accused Plaza any wrong information. She explained that what she told accused Plaza and the bondswoman was what precisely complainant Judge wanted her to tell the accused and nothing more. 5

Jurisprudence dictates that in administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence. In order to satisfy the substantial evidence requirement, hearsay evidence should necessarily be supplemented and corroborated by other evidence that are not hearsay. The evidence against the respondent should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. 6 Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. 7 Charges based on mere suspicions and speculations cannot be given credence, 8 as in this case.

WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Indorsement dated August 17, 2018 of Executive Judge Maria Florencia B. Formes-Baculo, Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, is 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.Rollo, pp. 3-5.

2.Id. at 15-31.

3.Id. at 45-51.

4.Id. at 52-58.

5.Id. at 57.

6.Re: Letter of Lucena Ofendoreyes Alleging Illicit Activities of Atty. Cajayon, A.M. No. 16-12-03-CA, 06 June 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

7.Re: Rafael Dimaano, A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA & IPI No. 17-258-CA-J, 11 July 2017 [Per J. Mendoza].

8.Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, A.M. No. P-08-2519, 19 November 2008 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].