Case Digest (A.M. No. P-269)
Facts:
Court of Industrial Relations v. Leoncio S. Solidum, Adm. Matter No. P-269, January 30, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Munoz Palma, J., writing for the Court. The complainant was the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), represented by then Acting Presiding Judge Ansberto P. Paredes; the respondent was Atty. Leoncio S. Solidum, a hearing examiner of the CIR, charged under Section 1(e), Presidential Decree No. 6, and for violating an office memorandum.On February 28, 1974 Judge Paredes filed a letter-complaint alleging that on February 14, 1974 respondent reported for work at 8:22 a.m., and shortly thereafter, while inside his office, exposed himself and masturbated within the sight of Elizabeth Glorioso, a 16‑year‑old who lived opposite the CIR building; that Elizabeth and her aunt, Dra. Adoracion Pascua, reported the incident; and that respondent left hurriedly without a permission slip and had allegedly committed similar acts earlier in January 1974. Respondent answered on March 4, 1974 denying several allegations and requesting formal investigation.
A preliminary inquiry was conducted by Atty. Sofronio A. Ona on February 15 and 19, 1974, where Dra. Pascua and Elizabeth testified (their stenographic transcripts were made part of the file). The complaint was then assigned to Atty. Pedro F. Perez, Acting Assistant Chief Hearing Examiner, who after investigation reported that the charges were “established by sufficient evidence.” Based on that report, Judge Paredes rendered a decision dated April 24, 1974 adopting the investigator’s report and ordering respondent’s dismissal; a motion for reconsideration was filed and denied on May 24, 1974.
At the formal investigation on March 19, 1974 respondent appeared, was shown the transcripts of the February hearings, and opted to present his documentary and medical evidence rather than confront the complainant’s witnesses, who had sought postponement to March 21. Respondent’s evidence included medical certificates, laboratory results, prescriptions and other exhibits purporting to show treatment for urinary tract infection; he testified that his conduct was a form of “self‑treatment.” Testimony and other evidence (time card entry by Juan Barte, the immediate complaint by Dra. Pascua and Elizabeth, respondent’s sudden departure from the office, telephone calls reporting his medical attendance) formed the factual record relied on by the CIR.
Respondent appealed to the Supreme Court invoking its administrative supervisory power under Article X, Section 6 of the 1973 Constitution. The Court reviewed the investigative proceedings, the investigator’s report, respondent’s testimony and exhibits, and the preliminary stenogra...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient evidence presented by complainant to support the charges against respondent?
- May the stenographic transcripts of the February 15 and 19, 1974 preliminary hearings be considered evidence and part of the administrative record?
- Were the complainant’s witnesses fictitious persons?
- Were the stenographic transcripts of February 15 and 19, 1974 fictitious?
- Was respondent’s identity established as the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)