Case Digest: GLANIE FLORES, et al. v. MYRNA S. LOFRANCO

GLANIE FLORES, et al. v. MYRNA S. LOFRANCO

A.M. No. P-04-1914, 30 April 2008, SECOND DIVISION

Complainant brothers Richard, Danny, Virgilio, Timoteo, and Leonardo all surnamed Flores charged respondent Myrna Lofranco (Lofranco), Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court of Digos City of immorality, misconduct, and violation of Republic Act 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards). In their complaint, brothers Flores allege that Lofranco, while married to another is illicitly living with Sabino Flores, brother of the Flores brothers. For her part, Lofranco denied having any amorous relationship with Sabino.

Upon recommendation of the Office of Court Administrator (OCA), the Court redocketed the complaint as regular administrative case and referred it to Executive Judge of Regional Trial Court of Digos for investigation, report, and recommendation. Executive Judge Marivic Daray said in her Report and Recommendation that Flores brothers did not show up hence, they were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence. Consequently, Judge Daray found that the only evidence to prove Lofranco‘s misconduct was Sabino‘s son‘s Affidavit. Thus, Judge Daray recommended the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not complaint against Lofranco was rightly dismissed

HELD:

It is well settled that in administrative cases, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. It bears stressing that the original affidavit had not been identified by him. It thus remains hearsay, bereft of substantial evidentiary value.

The failure of the Flores brothers ‘counsel to put [the affiant] on the stand is fatal to the case of petitioner and renders the affidavit . . . inadmissible under the hearsay rule. Affidavits are classified as hearsay evidence since they are not generally prepared by the affiant but by another who uses his own language in writing the affiants statements, which may thus be either omitted or misunderstood by he one writing them. Moreover, the adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross examine the affiant. For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless the affiant themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify thereon.