A.M. No. 253-MJ - Ausejo vs. Pajunar

Complainant: Municipal Mayor Alfonso S. Ausejo, representing the municipal government of Bacong, Negros Oriental.
Respondent: Municipal Judge Gaudencio P. Pajunar, accused of administrative misconduct.

The allegations hinted at deep-seated personal differences between the complainant and the respondent.

Jurisdiction over the case was vested in the Department of Justice at the time.
The case was referred to the Executive Judge of Dumaguete City, Macario P. Santos, for administrative supervision.

Convened on March 4, 1961.
The complainant was represented by Atty. Enrique Medina; the respondent by Attys. Marcelo Flores and others.
Only one witness testified at the first session.

At a later session on March 18, 1961, counsel for the complainant admitted that some witnesses were vacillating in their testimonies.
Due to the uncertainty in witness evidence, the complainant’s counsel moved for the dismissal of the case and for the investigation to be closed.

Judge Macario P. Santos, after the hearing and review of testimonies, reported and recommended the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the evidence did not substantiate the charges against Judge Pajunar.
With the subsequent assumption of administrative supervision by the current Tribunal and referral of the case papers to Judicial Consultant, retired Court of Appeals Justice Manuel P. Barcelona, further studies confirmed the lack of substantiation.
Ultimately, the administrative complaint against Judge Pajunar was dismissed.

Whether the evidence presented in the administrative proceedings was sufficient to support the charges of absenteeism, ignorance of the law, and partiality against Judge Pajunar.
Whether the personal differences between the complainant and the respondent influenced the allegations and the conduct of the administrative investigation.

Whether the vacillation in witness testimonies compromised the credibility of the evidence.
Whether the administrative investigation followed due process, particularly in light of the complainant’s later manifestation in open court to dismiss the case.

The appropriateness of referring the case to different judicial bodies (from the Department of Justice to the Executive Judge, and subsequently to a Judicial Consultant) in line with the applicable administrative and constitutional guidelines.