Case Summary (A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA, IPI No. 17-258-CA-J)
Petitioner and Respondent
The petitioners, Rosa Abdulharan and Rafael Dimaano, filed complaints against Justice Lantion and Atty. Cajayon. Justice Lantion is a sitting justice of the Court of Appeals, while Atty. Cajayon is a lawyer based in Zamboanga City, with a history of legal practice spanning several years.
Applicable Law
This case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and the Rules of Court that provide the framework for administering justice and disciplining members of the judiciary and legal professionals.
Allegations Made
Abdulharan's complaint, dated September 12, 2016, alleges that Atty. Cajayon solicited money from litigants for favorable rulings from Justice Lantion. Dimaano’s letter dated November 14, 2016, raises similar concerns about a syndicate allegedly operating in the Court of Appeals. Both complaints were forwarded to the Supreme Court for investigation.
Responses by the Respondents
Atty. Cajayon, in her formal answer, categorically denied any association with the complainants and refuted the accusations of solicitation or corruption. She emphasized her professionalism and integrity throughout her legal career, insisting that the claims were unfounded and intended to tarnish her reputation.
Justice Lantion also denied the charges, asserting that the allegations were generalizations lacking substantial proof. She pointed out that the unsworn letters failed to provide specific acts or evidence of any wrongdoing. Moreover, she highlighted the improbability of the allegations, given her brief tenure in Cagayan de Oro and her lack of relationship with Atty. Cajayon.
Court's Evaluation of the Complaints
The Supreme Court determined that the complaints were fundamentally flawed. According to the provisions in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, administrative proceedings against judges require verified complaints supported by affidavits from individuals with personal knowledge of the claims. The Court found that the handwritten letters submitted by the complainants lacked verification and substantive evidence.
Burden of Proof and Legal Standards
The burden lies with the complainants to provide substantial evidence supporting their allegations. The standard for administrative complaints necessitates a level of proof beyond mere conjecture. The Cour
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA, IPI No. 17-258-CA-J)
Case Background
- Two letter-complaints were filed against Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, and Atty. Dorothy S. Cajayon by Rosa Abdulharan and Rafael Dimaano.
- The complaints allege that Atty. Cajayon was involved in selling favorable decisions from Justice Lantion, capitalizing on the misfortunes of poor litigants.
- Abdulharan claimed that Atty. Cajayon advised parties to prepare money to secure favorable decisions, while Dimaano's complaint raised concerns about a syndicate selling favorable rulings.
Procedural History
- The complaints were forwarded to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) after being filed with the Office of the President (OP) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
- The cases were consolidated under IPI No. 17-258-CA-J and A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA.
- The Court required both respondents to provide comments on the allegations.
Respondents' Comments
Atty. Dorothy Cajayon's Response
- Atty. Cajayon denied knowing the complainants and asserted that she has had no dealings with them during her professional career.
- She described the allegations as impossible and damaging to her re