In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[19]
In the present case, there is no sufficient, clear and convincing evidence to hold Divina administratively liable for Gross Misconduct as charged in the undated anonymous letter. As found during the investigation, apart from the allegation of the “Concerned Citizen,” not a scintilla of evidence was proffered to establish that she demanded and solicited the amount of ₱20,000.00 from a party in a pending case before the RTC in exchange for the prompt preparation of the TSN. It bears to point out that the author of the undated anonymous letter never came out in the open to testify before the Investigating Judge to support his claim that Divina had engaged in an illegal activity to make money out of a case pending before the RTC.
Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. This brings to fore the application of the age-old but familiar rule that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it for mere allegation is not evidence. Reliance on mere allegation, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.[20] The allegation of “Concerned Citizen” that Divina attempted to extort ₱20,000.00 has remained as such and, thus, cannot be admitted as evidence, let alone given evidentiary weight. As it stands, this charge of attempted extortion has remained unsubstantiated and, hence, should be dismissed.
The charge of belligerent/arrogant behavior against Divina must likewise fail. A circumspect scrutiny of the records has revealed that the testimony of Atty. Camacho is inadequate to establish his claim and to hold her liable for misconduct. The Court fully subscribes to the findings of the Investigating Judge whose observation deserves to be quoted at length, thus:
Apropos the incident between complainant Camacho and the respondent, the Investigating Judge is at a loss on how to make a categorical disposition. The testimony of complainant Camacho is as credible as that of respondent’s insofar as the incident in question is concerned. Although this Investigating Judge was present when the spat took place, his attention was focused at a case then being heard. It would have been easier for the Investigating Judge to make a clear-cut finding had complainant Camacho or respondent, on their own, offered the testimony of Atty. Eliodoro S. Baluyot or of any other person who may have been an eyewitness in support of their versions. Verily, some leeway must be allowed to the justification proffered by respondent. It is not hard to imagine the situation the respondent was in at the time of the incident. She should have all eyes and ears at the hearing then in progress, and yet, a lawyer in front of her kept on asking her about a copy of a TSN which is not even due to him but to some other lawyer. This is not to say, however, that the respondent should be absolved entirely of what had happened between her and complainant Camacho. The fact is that a TSN was due from her and it took a lot of requests from said complainant before she made it available. xxx[21]
The Court has always stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility.[22] All court personnel must observe strict propriety and decorum to preserve and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in the judiciary. Needless to say, every act and word of all court personnel should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and diligence.
In this case, Divina’s demeanor at the time was nothing but an isolated emotional outburst after beingapparently distracted from taking down stenographic notes of a proceeding because of the repetitious and annoying requests of Atty. Camacho for a copy of the TSN, not for himself, but for his lawyer friend. To the mind of the Court, Divina’s conduct was not of such deplorable and contemptible nature that would serve as valid basis to slap her with an administrative and disciplinary sanction in view of the facts obtaining in this case. Besides, there is no showing that her behavior at that time was calculated merely to disrespect, humiliate or insult Atty. Camacho before those present during the hearing. It is significant to note that Atty. Camacho has not cited any other similar incident to validate his accusation of her alleged belligerent attitude towards him.
Meanwhile, the accusation of extortion by Ricardo against Divina is bereft of merit and, hence, must also be dismissed. The charge of extortion is a factual matter which must be established and proved with sufficient competent evidence. Complainant, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, failed to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he based his claim. No clear and solid proof was offered by Ricardo to show that Divina demanded money from him in exchange for immediate preparation of his TSN. As found by the Investigating Judge, Ricardo even admitted that he voluntarily gave money to Divina each time the latter would ask for it because he believed that this would expedite the transcription of their stenographic notes.
The Court is in full accord with the findings and evaluation of the Investigating Judge whose assessment and appreciation of evidence are quite competent and convincing. An accusation of extortion is a very serious charge which, if properly substantiated, would entail not only the respondent’s dismissal from the Judiciary but also a possible criminal prosecution. To be sure, it will take more than a mere ambiguous testimony of a lone witness to lend an aura of credibility to such accusation.
