Supreme Court junks suit vs CA justice
The Supreme Court has dismissed a complaint filed against a Court of Appeals justice accused of “illegal, scandalous and anomalous” conduct in handling a case in 2008.
Saying that there was not enough evidence to investigate the accused and raising doubts about the existence of the complainant, the high tribunal denied due course to the complaint filed against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. in April 2008 by a certain Abelardo Silverio, “whose existence cannot be established.”
In a June 23 resolution, the high court also dismissed the complaint “for lack of the proof required in administrative actions.”
In a letter, Silverio had called the attention of then Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, then Chief Justice Reynato Puno and the Court Administrator to Bato’s supposed “illegal, scandalous, and anomalous conduct” as the writer of the decision in the case of Strategic Alliance Development Corp. against Star Infrastructure Development Corp. et al., which was then pending in the appellate court’s Special Fifth Division.
Silverio claimed that Bato had been meeting in private with respondents in the case and was allegedly given a substantial amount of money to render a favorable decision. The money was allegedly going to be shared with two other justices in the case, Andres Reyes Jr. and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza.
Silverio further claimed that he had hired a private investigator who supposedly found out that Bato had prepared a draft decision in favor of the respondents and tried to convince Reyes and Mendoza to concur with the decision.
Bato also supposedly played golf regularly with fellow appellate court justices and lawyers.
Silverio had wanted Bato investigated for serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a Court of Appeals justice.
However, Silverio could not be located at the Manila address he gave when the high court issued a resolution that would have started the investigation he sought.
Bato denied Silverio’s allegation that he had met with the respondents, received money from them and tried to convince his fellow justices in the fifth division to concur with his draft decision in exchange for money.
Mendoza also categorically said in his affidavit that Bato had never approached him or offered him money.
The high court also noted that Bato could not have tried to influence Reyes because the latter had already inhibited himself from the case in 2007.
Bato admitted to playing golf but did so as a form of exercise and that he went to golf courses that charged minimal fees.
“While administrative proceedings are not strictly bound by the formal rules of evidence, the liberality of procedure in such proceedings is still subject to the limitations imposed by the requirement of due process. This demands that, if the respondent judge were to be disciplined for grave misconduct, the evidence against him should be competent, derived from the witness’ personal knowledge. The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion or speculation,” the high tribunal said.
