Flores v. Lofranco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, the Flores brothers and their wives, initiated an administrative case against Myrna S. Lofranco, a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Digos City. The charges included immorality, misconduct, and violation of R.A. No. 6713. The core of the complaint alleged that Lofranco was illicitly cohabiting with Sabino Flores, a brother to the male complainants, despite Lofranco being married to another man. Additionally, the complainants accused Lofranco of destroying a fence they had erected on their deceased father's lot, photographing them while they were repairing it, and threatening them with death if they returned to the property. They also alleged that Lofranco filed retaliatory cases against them. Procedural History: The Affidavit-Complaint was initially filed with the Ombudsman for Mindanao, which then endorsed it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action. The OCA, upon recommendation, re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative case and referred it to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Digos City for investigation. The investigating judge noted that the complainants failed to appear for the preliminary conference, leading to their waiver of the right to present evidence. The respondent was then allowed to present her evidence, which included her testimony, that of her witnesses, and a Joint Affidavit of Desistance from the complainants. The investigating judge recommended the dismissal of the complaint, finding the evidence insufficient, particularly regarding the charge of immorality, which relied on an affidavit from Sabino's son that was later recanted and not affirmed by the affiant in court. The Court adopted these findings and recommendations. The Petition: This case originated from an administrative complaint filed by the Flores family against Myrna S. Lofranco. The complainants alleged immorality and misconduct, primarily based on Lofranco's alleged cohabitation with Sabino Flores, a married man. They also accused her of property destruction, threats, and retaliatory legal actions. The respondent denied the allegations, asserting a professional relationship with Sabino Flores and claiming the complainants were attempting to force him out of a joint business venture. The respondent also presented evidence of a recantation by a key witness and affidavits from her daughter and Sabino Flores himself. The Supreme Court, adopting the findings of the investigating judge, ultimately dismissed the administrative case due to the complainants' failure to substantiate their claims with substantial evidence, noting the hearsay nature of crucial evidence and the lack of direct affirmation from a key witness.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainants sufficiently proved the charge of immorality against the respondent. Whether the complainants sufficiently proved the charges of misconduct and violation of R.A. No. 6713 against the respondent.
Ruling
The administrative case against respondent Myrna S. Lofranco is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of immorality: The Court held that the only evidence presented to prove the charge of immorality was the Affidavit of Jestoni Flores, the son of Sabino Flores. However, Jestoni was not presented to affirm his affidavit during the proceedings. Furthermore, Jestoni had executed an Affidavit of Recantation, retracting his earlier claims. The Court emphasized that in administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations with substantial evidence. Jestoni's original affidavit, not having been identified by him and lacking affirmation, remained hearsay evidence, bereft of substantial evidentiary value. The failure to place the affiant on the witness stand to testify on the contents of the affidavit is fatal to the case, rendering the affidavit inadmissible under the hearsay rule, as it deprives the adverse party of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant. On the charges of misconduct and violation of R.A. No. 6713: The Court found that these charges were also wanting in support. The investigating judge noted that the complainants failed to appear during the preliminary conference, thereby waiving their right to present evidence. Consequently, the respondent was allowed to present her evidence, which included a Joint Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complainants. Without substantial evidence from the complainants to substantiate their claims of misconduct and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, the charges could not be sustained. The Court reiterated the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the complainant in administrative cases.
Main Doctrine
In administrative cases, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations with substantial evidence. Hearsay evidence, such as an un-affirmed affidavit, lacks substantial evidentiary value. The failure to present the affiant for cross-examination is fatal to the case.