2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

VOL. 463, JULY 14, 2005 269

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

*
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1516. July 14, 2005.

ONOFRE G. DULAY and MGA UMAASANG

MAMAMAYAN NG QUIRINO, Complainants, vs. JUDGE
ELIAS O. LELINA, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 32,
Cabarroguis, Quirino, respondent.

Administrative Law; Judges; In administrative proceedings,

the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the
complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion.—In administrative proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the
complaint with substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. It must be remembered that while this Court
has the duty to ensure that judges and other court personnel
perform their duties with utmost efficiency, propriety and fidelity,
it is also our obligation to see to it that they are protected from
unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the
orderly administration of justice. Thus, administrative complaints
that are clearly motivated by intentions other than the advocacy
of judicial competence are promptly written off.
Same; Same; A magistrate of law must comport himself at all
times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can
bear the most searching scrutiny of the public; They are mandated
not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.—Although every office in the government is a
public trust, no position exacts greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the
judiciary. A magistrate of law must comport himself at all times
in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear
the most searching scrutiny of the public. The New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary prescribes that

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

observer. Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety in all their activities. Likewise, they
are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in a special position
to influence the judge. The Code clearly prohibits judges or
members of their families from asking for or accepting, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or
omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the
performance of judicial duties.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Misconduct.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Respondent Elias O. Lelina, Jr., presiding judge of the

Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31,
stands administratively charged for gross misconduct in
two separate administrative complaints filed by the Mga
Umaasang Mamamayan ng Quirino, docketed as A.M.
OCA I.P.I. No. 99-860-RTJ, and Onofre G. Dulay, docketed
as A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 99-588-RTJ.
An anonymous letter was sent by the Mga Umaasang
Mamamayan ng Quirino to the National 1
Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) on February 25, 1998 requesting for
an investigation on the alleged violation of the Anti-Graft
Law and other illegal activities committed by respondent
judge in the province of Quirino. On June 1, 1998, through
an Indorsement Letter from the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), the matter was referred to the NBI

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

for discreet investigation. The NBI submitted its

Investigation Report on July2
27, 1999 to the OCA for
information and disposition.

_______________

1 Excerpt from letter, attached as Annex “A” to the NBI report, Rollo, p.
82.
2 Rollo, p. 74.

271

VOL. 463, JULY 14, 2005 271

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

The report stated that respondent judge usually asked for

money or parcels of land in exchange for favorable decision.
There were incidents when respondent judge would carry
his .45 caliber pistol while inside the courtroom, tucked in
his waist, for the purpose of intimidating others. According
to the NBI, respondent judge was guilty of serious
misconduct as a judge and committed the following acts:

1) Extorting money from a party litigant who has a

case before his court;
2) Using intemperate language unbecoming of a judge;
3) Failure to pay debt;
4) Oppression or unwarranted display of authority;
5) Acting as counsel for all the parties with opposing
interest on a parcel of land in pursuance of his
personal self-interest.

The NBI recommended disbarment and the filing of

administrative charges for serious misconduct and
inefficiency.
The second case stems from the letter-complaint filed by3
Onofre G. Dulay with the OCA dated July 11, 1998.
Onofre’s charges against respondent judge can be summed
up as follows:

1) Respondent judge arbitrarily cited him, his mother

Victoria Gacote Dulay, and his aunt, Marita G.
Rosal, for indirect contempt in a civil case no longer
pending in respondent judge’s sala;
2) Corollary to the first charge, Onofre’s mother and
aunt were each meted fines of P15,000.00 and

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

imprisonment of 3 months while Onofre was meted

a fine of P30,000.00 and imprisonment of 6 months;
3) In Criminal Case No. 1395 filed against Onofre for
Grave Threats, respondent judge arbitrarily
increased his bail from P50,000.00 to P200,000.00
and immediately issued a warrant for his arrest;

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 1-4.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

4) Respondent judge showed bias in resolving the

matters submitted to him in Civil Case No. 445;
5) Respondent judge ordered Onofre to give him 160
square meters of a home lot in Cabarroguis, Quirino
which respondent directed to be registered in the
name of one Agnes Mariano; and
6) Respondent judge prepared the pleadings filed in
court by Onofre’s opponents in behalf of the latter’s
counsel, Atty. Beltejar.
4
In his comment dated February 12, 1999, respondent judge
denied the allegations and insisted that Onofre initiated
the complaint in retaliation for an unfavorable judgment
removing him as administrator of the estate of former
Governor Dulay. Respondent judge’s comment on each
accusation are as follows:

1) The subject civil case was transferred to his sala

through the directive of the Presiding Judge
without any objections from Onofre’s party.
2) Onofre, his mother and aunt were cited for
contempt and fined accordingly for their refusal to
receive the processes from the court and to answer
the contempt charge filed against them.
3) The bail set was reasonable considering that the
charge was for Grave Threats to Kidnap and Kill,
which under the Bail Bond Guide of 1997 is a non-
bailable offense. Nonetheless, respondent judge
wanted to be fair and followed the recommendation
of the Provincial Prosecutor for the amount of the
bail.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

4) Respondent judge proceeded with Civil Case No.

445 in accordance with law.
5) The home lot being referred to does not even belong
to the late Governor Dulay or to his son Onofre.
Likewise, neither is respondent judge the registered
owner of said lot.
6) Atty. Beltejar is a seasoned lawyer with a reputable
practice throughout the country. It is in fact Onofre
who has attempted to offer him money for a
favorable judgment in his case.

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 35-41.

273

VOL. 463, JULY 14, 2005 273

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

In a resolution dated December 15, 1999, the cases were

docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-99-1516 and were referred to
then Court of Appeals Associate Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.
for report and recommendation. Investigative proceedings
were conducted. However, upon the appointment of Justice
Callejo, Sr. to the Supreme Court, the case was re-assigned
to Court of Appeals Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, 5
Jr. per
resolution of this Court dated November 13, 2002.
On the complaint filed by Mga Umaasang Mamamayan
ng Quirino, Justice Vasquez reported that the alleged
complainants never came forward nor did they execute any
affidavit or sworn statement to substantiate their claims.
The only evidence submitted to support the complaint was
the uncorroborated sworn statement of Editha Dumlao,
who was not presented as a witness during the
investigation, and the report of the NBI, which was based
on second-hand information. Thus, he recommended the
dismissal of the complaint.
Anent the complaint filed by Onofre Dulay, Justice
Vasquez reported that Onofre’s statement of facts were not
accurate; that Onofre failed to prove that he was ordered to
give 160 square meters of home lot to respondent judge. On
the contrary, evidence shows that Agnes Mariano is the
registered owner of the lot after Onofre gave her the
property as payment for his debts. Neither was Onofre able
to prove that respondent judge prepared the pleadings filed
by his opponents.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

However, the investigating justice found adequate

evidence showing that respondent judge committed
improprieties in dealing with Onofre which warrants
disciplinary sanctions.
Based on his findings, the investigating justice
recommended:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully

recommended that the complaint of the Mga Umaasang
Mamama-

_______________

5 Id., at p. 768.

274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

yan ng Quirino be dismissed for lack of merit. As for the

complaint of Onofre G. Dulay, it is further recommended that, for
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge Elias O.
Lelina, Jr. be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all of
the benefits as the High Court may determine, and be
disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office,6
including government-owned or controlled
corporations.

We sustain the findings of the investigating justice.

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with
substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable7 mind might accept as adequate to
justify a conclusion. It must be remembered that while this
Court has the duty to ensure that judges and other court
personnel perform their duties with utmost efficiency,
propriety and fidelity, it is also our obligation to see to it
that they are protected from unfounded suits that serve to
disrupt8 rather than promote the orderly administration of
justice. Thus, administrative complaints that are clearly
motivated by intentions other than the advocacy of judicial
competence are promptly written off. 9
As held in Pangan v. Ganay, et al.:

Furthermore, even in an administrative case, the Rules of Court

require that if the respondent Judge should be disciplined for
grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him
should be competent and should be derived from direct

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

knowledge. The judiciary to which the respondent belongs

demands no less.

_______________

6 Report and Recommendation, p. 11.

7 Ocenar v. Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1582, 28 February 2005, 452 SCRA 377,
citing Montes v. Mallare, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1528, 6 February 2004, 422 SCRA 309,
315.
8 Planas v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 146;
Tan v. Adre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 145; Mataga v.
Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488, 13 October 2004, 440 SCRA 217; Francisco v.
Leyva, 364 Phil. 1, 4; 304 SCRA 365, 368 (1999).
9 A.M. No. RTJ-04-1887, 9 December 2004, 445 SCRA 574.

275

VOL. 463, JULY 14, 2005 275

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

Before any of its members could be faulted, competent evidence

should be presented, especially since the charge is penal in
character.
Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the
truth behind every matter in complaints against Judges and other
court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are
protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges.
The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing
discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to
shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt
rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.

However, as to the complaint filed by Onofre Dulay against

respondent judge, although the investigation revealed that
most of the allegations were based on misrepresentation of
facts by Onofre, sufficient evidence however exists which
shows that respondent judge was guilty of gross
misconduct.
Although every office in the government is a public
trust, no position exacts greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat
in the judiciary. A magistrate of law must comport himself
at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or
otherwise,
10
can bear the most searching scrutiny of the
public. The New 11Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary prescribes that judges shall ensure
that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
12
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

Thus, judges are to avoid impropriety 13

and the appearance
of impropriety in all their activities. Likewise,

_______________

10 Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, 6 April 2005, 455 SCRA 1.

11 A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC. Promulgated on 27 April 2004 and took effect
on 1 June 2004.
12 Section 1, Canon 2.
13 See Co v. Plata, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501, 14 March 2005, 453 SCRA
326; Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Sayo, Jr., 431 Phil. 413,
436; 381 SCRA 659, 679 (2002); Briones v. Judge Ante, Jr., 430 Phil. 204,
209; 380 SCRA 409, 412 (2002).

276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dulay vs. Lelina, Jr.

they are mandated not to allow family, social or other

relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor
convey or permit others to convey the impression 14
that they
are in a special position to influence the judge. The Code
clearly prohibits judges or members of their families from
asking for or accepting, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be
done by him or15 her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.
Respondent judge failed to live up to these standards.
Despite knowledge of Onofre and Mariano’s intentions in
offering the business to his daughters, respondent judge
allowed his daughters to accept the offer of business
partnership with persons who have pending cases in his
court.
Respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for
which he is administratively liable. Under Section 11, Rule
140 of the Revised Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a
serious charge punishable by: 1) dismissal from service; 2)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3)
a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding
P40,000.00. We find that suspension from office for six (6)
months 16without salary and other benefits is commensurate
penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr.,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis,
Quirino, Branch 31, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 463

and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months

without salary and other benefits. He is WARNED that the
commission of the same or similar infractions in the future
will merit a more severe penalty.

_______________

14 Section 4, Canon 1.
15 Section 14, Canon 4.
16 In Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, 437 SCRA 581, respondent
judge was found guilty of gross misconduct and suspended for four (4)
months.

277

VOL. 463, JULY 14, 2005 277

Jaramillo vs. Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Quisumbing, Carpio

and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Judge Elias O. Lelina, Jr. suspended from office for six

(6) months without salary and other benefits for gross
misconduct, with warning against commission of similar
infractions.

Note.—The requirement that a judge be above suspicion

extends to the conduct of his private life. (Tapiru vs. Biden,
330 SCRA 40 [2000])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d5b4dd37cb41a3c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9