Case Digest: DATU OMAR S. SINSUAT and MARIANO H. PAPS v. JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO

DATU OMAR S. SINSUAT and MARIANO H. PAPS v. JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO

561 SCRA 38 (2008), EN BANC

Petitioners Attys. Datu Omar Sinsuat and Mariano Paps filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo. Attys. Sinsuat and Paps were counsel for the defendant in a civil case pending before the sala of Judge Hidalgo.

Attys. Sinsuat and Paps question, among other things, the authority of the Judge Hidalgo to issue in the abovementioned civil case a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Philippine National Oil Company-Energy Development Corporation (PNOC-EDC) from holding a bidding for wooden poles required for the “O-Ilaw Project – An Accelerated Rural Electrification Program”. According to Attys. Sinsuat and Paps, Judge Hidalgo disregarded the clear proscription of the Presidential Decree No. 181881 and Republic Act No. 8975 and the Court‘s Administrative Circular No. 11-200083 against the issuance of TROs and Writs of Injunction on government infrastructure projects.

Judge Hidalgo, on the other hand, contends that the complaint against him should be dismissed because the complaint and subsequent communications of the Attys. Sinsuat and Paps were not verified, in violation of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether of not the complaint may be ruled upon even if the same did not comply with the requirements stated in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court

HELD:

Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides how proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted. It states that proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Under the above-quoted Rule, there are three ways by which administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

While the copy of the Motion which the Attorneys furnished the OCA was unverified as were their subsequent letters, the OCA correctly treated them as anonymous complaint. The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, been entertaining complaints of this nature especially where respondents admitted the material allegations of the complainants as in Judge Hidalgo‘s case.

Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution. They should not be dismissed outright, however, where their averments may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence.

Here, the motion and letters sufficiently averred the specific acts upon which Judge Hidalgo‘s alleged administrative liability was anchored. And the averments are verifiable from the records of the trial court and the Court of Appeal‘s Decision.