A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA, IPI No. 17-258-CA-J

Two separate letter-complaints were filed against Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City and Atty. Dorothy S. Cajayon of Zamboanga City.
The complaints alleged that the respondents were engaged in selling favorable decisions.

Dated September 12, 2016 and filed before the Office of the President.
Alleged that Atty. Cajayon was capitalizing on the suffering of poor litigants by advising parties with pending cases to “prepare money” in order to secure a favorable decision from Justice Lantion.

Dated November 14, 2016 and filed before the Department of Justice.
Sought an investigation into the “consistent and incessant allegation” of a syndicate selling favorable decisions in the CA-CDO.

The Office of the President and the Department of Justice referred the letters to the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator in December 2016 and January 2017 respectively.
The cases were subsequently docketed as IPI No. 17-258-CA-J and A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA.
On April 4, 2017, the Court resolved to consolidate the two cases and directed both Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon to comment.

Asserted that she had no dealings—professional or personal—with the complainants over her long years of practice.
Denied any involvement in schemes to offer or sell favorable decisions, emphasizing her adherence to high moral and professional standards.
Noted that she neither recognized nor was associated with the complainants mentioned in the allegations.

Vehemently denied the charges, characterizing the allegations as false, malicious, and lacking in factual basis.
Emphasized that the unsworn letters were overly broad, replete with generalizations, and unsupported by evidence.
Pointed out the improbability of the alleged scheme given her brief stint in CA-CDO and the fact that the complaints were filed years after her transfer to CA-Manila.
Clarified that she did not have personal or professional interaction with Atty. Cajayon beyond a casual acquaintance in law school.

The Court examined the administrative complaints under the Rules of Court concerning the discipline of judges (Section 1, Rule 140) and lawyers (Section 1, Rule 139-B).
Noted that proper filing of an administrative complaint requires verified pleadings supported by affidavits or documents to substantiate the allegations.
Observed that the complaints in the present case were handwritten, unverified, and couched in general terms without substantial evidence.

Whether the letter-complaints adequately stated the specific acts or omissions constituting the alleged misconduct.
Whether the allegations showed a pattern or include details that would constitute a continuous and widespread practice of selling favorable decisions.

Whether the complaints complied with the mandated procedural rules—specifically the requirement for verified pleadings accompanied by affidavits or documentary evidence.
Whether the unsworn and general nature of the letters meets the standard necessary for initiating administrative proceedings against judges and lawyers.

Whether the facts as alleged in the unverified letter-complaints could be substantiated by direct evidence or relied on mere conjectures and supposition.
How the lapse of several years since the alleged incidents (particularly with respect to Justice Lantion’s transfer) affects the veracity and relevance of the complaints.

Whether the allegations, if left unaddressed, could unjustly tarnish the reputation of public officers and members of the judiciary.
The necessity of showing substantial evidence before subjecting a judge or attorney to disciplinary proceedings.