FABRICATED COMPLAINT OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE OF A JUDGE

Complainants who are the seven court employees, accused Judge A by use
intemperate language against Court Administrator D and OCA auditor E for
expressing displeasure on the insistence to appoint a rejected applicant as clerk of court
and for the conduct of a judicial audit. The same complaint of intemperate language was
filed by four judges and seventy court employees in another administrative case against
Judge A.

Is Judge A administratively liable for intemperate language? The answer is in the

negative.

Complainants put words into the mouth of Judge A to subject her to administrative
liabilities and penalties at all cost. They failed to present credible and competent proof
of uttering intemperate language against Court Administrator D and OCA auditor E.
Also, Judge A did not talk to four Judges and sixty-three court employees, save for her
court staff, for years about Court Administrator D and OCA Auditor E because they
do not see each other or talk with each other in Z Hall of Justice. Judge A stays in her
court most of the time to work from morning to afternoon, eats lunch inside the
chambers, then goes straight to school for teaching or to their home for resting. Thus,
the complaint of four Judges and seventy court employees on intemperate language is
baseless and fabricated.

On the other hand, two complainants did not surrender their tape, to authenticate the
same to make them criminally liable for multiple counts of Perjury. Complainants made
also the false and malicious accusation that she threatened to bring a gun that is false
because of the material discrepancy as to the dates alone. Their affidavit alleging this
false charge against Judge A was dated April 1, 2010, it was subscribed on April 18.
2010 while the date of the alleged threat to bring a gun was dated April 21. 2010 as
narrated by them to prove falsehood, the threat came later than their complaint and the
subscription of their complaint before Assistant Public Prosecutor PATAK PATAK.
This particular charge was intended to defame Judge A who reported it to the police
station.

1
These complainants appeared to be unworthy as court personnel who committing
irregularities showing on various dates, among others, graft and corruption, dishonesty,
gross misconduct and unethical, unlawful and deceitful of conduct prejudicial to the
interest of service. They consistently lied, particularly in fabricated words that Judge
A uttered against Court Administrator D and OCA auditor E without giving any
particular time, date and place, and without stating the entire words allegedly said by
Judge A to them for all those times they were scolded for irregularities. Upon
investigation individually, they varied in giving out details of the alleged incidents. They
failed to stand to a rigid cross-examination because they made double false complaints
and multiple false accusations against Judge A who repeatedly reminded them to act
properly in court and to refrain from committing graft and corrupt practices acts many
times.

About SC Auditor E, there was a simple miscommunication between them. He missed

the clear import of the letter, though it was explained to him in the presence of another
SC H.

As to the alleged defamation of Court Administrator D that has no time, date and
place, bereft of other facts to pass as a valid complaint, seventy four complainants put
words into Judge As mouth. For lack of evidence other than bare and empty words,
complainants can pass as script writers in a television station because those words are
fabricated by them.

Because the false accusations of the seventy four complainants have no proof, these
words should be stricken off to avoid injustice to the involved parties if read by the
unsuspecting public. Quoting their false allegations means dignifying such false practice
of intriguing against honor in the judiciary as a prestigious institution that Supreme Court
Justices should not allow and tolerate to proliferate otherwise it would be followed by
others who will write unfounded and unsubstantiated defamatory words in order to
harass and defame persons in their fabricated complaints putting them in bad light to
the unsuspecting public.

The presentation of complainants to testify during the hearing before the Investigating
Judge did not make their testimonies as evidence against Judge A.

2
This is because what they falsely alleged against Judge A, aside from being
fabricated, are mere allegations. Their testimonial evidence have no probative value
before the investigating Judge. In De Jesus vs. Guerrero III, G.R. No. 171491,
September 4, 2009: The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot
be given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and
suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative complaint must
be dismissed for lack of merit. In Real vs. Abe G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011 citing
General Milling Corporation vs. Casio, G.R. No. 149552, March 10, 2010; Rimbunan
Hijau Group of Companies vs. Oriental Wood Processing Corporation, 507 Phil. 631,
648-649 (2005): What we found instead were mere allegations of respondents in their
various pleadings that petitioner was appointed as Manager of respondent corporation
and nothing more. The Court has stressed time and again that allegations must be
proven by sufficient evidence because mere allegation is definitely not evidence. In
LNS International Manpower Services vs. Padua Jr., G.R. No. 179792, March 5, 2011:
Bare and unsubstantiated allegations do not constitute substantial evidence and have
no probative value. What more, complainants are dishonest witnesses based on
indubitable documentary evidence for multiple counts of Perjury and Obstruction of
Justice submitted against them to the Office of the Court Administrator and to the
Department of Justice. Their credibility as a whole is not an issue here because what
they have are mere allegations (fabricated ones). In fact, a rigid cross-examination of
them revealed they are liars. They, individually, cannot state the particulars of the
alleged incidents leading to the alleged utterances such as what Judge A said before
and after, what Judge A was doing then, what are the time, date and place of the
incident and their respective position to Judge A. They cannot give the details of what
transpired each of the whole day, to include their entire conversations the whole day,
quoting what they said in verbatim also, when Judge A allegedly uttered mean words
to them to prove prevarication by them. They simply put words into Judge A mouth,
getting instructions from their cohorts related administrative cases, to paint a bad picture
of Judge A as a judge before the Supreme Court in order to degrade her and to
subject her to administrative penalties at all cost.

Another thing, there are material differences to prove fabrication of charges by them of
what Judge A allegedly uttered to Court Administrator D and OCA Auditor E. The
words Judge A allegedly uttered against Court Administrator D and OCA Auditor E
in one case are materially different from words Judge A allegedly uttered against Court
Administrator D and OCA Auditor E in another case.

3
In addition, it is noticeable that what complainants wrote of Judge As alleged words to
subject to penalty for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge are very lengthy that are
impossible to memorize and remember, even by those gifted with superior memory
especially that those allegedly happened a long time ago from the time they wrote them
in their perjured complaint-affidavit in one case. By demonstrative evidence, each
complainant is required to read the kilometric words uttered by Judge A, then recite
them verbatim or write them verbatim before the investigating Judge that they cannot do
to prove the fabricated charge of intemperate language allegedly committed by Judge
A.

Complainants are suggesting secret recording of these intemperate kilometric words.

Doing the same makes them criminally, civilly and administratively liable for violation of
RA No. 4200. The admissibility of the same is proscribed by the Exclusionary Rules.
Their alleged tape was not attached to their Complaint-Affidavit to authenticate the
same, requiring voice sample from Judge A who is willing to give that to them, so that
they will be criminally charged with violation of RA No. 4200 in addition to multiple
counts of Perjury for asserting falsehood in their complaint-affidavit with contents
different from the tape recording. Neither can they testify to this tape as their proof
because it is prohibited under RA No. 4200 but Judge A can utilize the same for the
charges of multiple counts of Perjury against them.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice Executive
Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine Manodon,
Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Virginia
D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer
H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid,
Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J.
Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos,
Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E. Diezmo,
Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T.
Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo
Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba, Marlon M. Suligan,
Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain,
Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M.
Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P. Ubana, Marvin O.
Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina

4
Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo
Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.