A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390 - Tan vs. Usman

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390)

Parties, Allegations, and Anchoring Proceedings

Josephine Jazmines Tan asserted that in relation to Civil Case No. 7681 and Criminal Case No. 6536, Judge Usman was bribed. She claimed that her opponent, Allan Tan, paid PHP 250,000.00, allegedly through Jaime Cui, Jr., as shown by a receipt that stated: “Received PHP 250,000.00 … from Mr. Jaime Cui, Jr. as full payment in CC No. 6536 & 7681 to be given to Judge S.E. Usman,” and that it was signed by Nilda C. Cinco, OIC-Branch Clerk of Court. Tan also accused the judge of knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order when he cited her in contempt. She further referenced that in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266, the Court had already found Judge Usman guilty of gross ignorance of the law, implying that the judge’s alleged improprieties were not isolated.

Initiation and Referral by the Office of the Court Administrator

On August 14, 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Usman to comment on charges characterized as Gross Misconduct, Knowingly rendering an Unjust Order, Abuse of Power, and Dishonesty, tied to the cited cases. In response, Judge Usman submitted a Comment dated October 9, 2012, arguing principally that the allegations had already been raised and resolved in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266, and that the present complaint should therefore be barred by res judicata. He also denied receipt of money from Jaime Cui, Jr. or from anyone regarding the subject cases. Judge Usman maintained that the complainant had fabricated and falsified the acknowledgment receipt by making it appear that Nilda C. Cinco received the money and issued the receipt on his behalf.

Rebuttals and Supporting Affidavits

To support the denial, Nilda C. Cinco executed an Affidavit dated October 8, 2012, denying receipt of any amount from Jaime Cui, Jr. and denying issuance of any acknowledgment receipt for such alleged payment. Jaime Cui, Jr., also executed an Affidavit dated October 8, 2012, denying that he disbursed any substantial amount to Judge Usman or to Nilda Cinco “in any occasion or for any purpose,” and he further alleged that he had already denied the same even during court proceedings on August 28, 2009. Judge Usman also added contextual matters. He asserted that when Tan claimed to have obtained information about alleged bribery in February or March 2009, Civil Case No. 7681 was still being tried before Branch 29 and only reached Branch 28 on June 25, 2009. He further argued that Allan Tan was killed on October 28, 2008, making it impossible for him to give orders to Jaime Cui, Jr. on the dates asserted to be tied to bribery.

OCA Recommendation, Raffle, and Investigating Justice’s Report

Due to conflicting versions, the OCA issued a Memorandum dated August 12, 2013 recommending that the administrative complaint be referred to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals in Cebu City for raffle among the justices there as to who would conduct the investigation. The complaint was subsequently raffled to Court of Appeals Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap. After investigation and evaluation, the Investigating Justice issued a Report dated May 6, 2014, recommending dismissal for lack of evidence. The Investigating Justice found that the complainant’s complaint-affidavit and the receipt she presented did not amount to substantial evidence to establish that Judge Usman committed bribery or corruption.

Doctrinal Framework Applied by the Court

The Court adopted the Investigating Justice’s findings and reiterated that, in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. Accordingly, if the complainant fails to satisfactorily establish the facts underpinning her claim, the respondent is not required to prove defenses or exceptions. The Court also emphasized the evidentiary difficulty unique to bribery allegations, noting that an accusation of bribery is “easy to concoct but difficult to prove,” and thus requires more than bare allegations. The Court further underscored that, in cases imputing misconduct so grave that dismissal from the bench would be warranted if proven, the quantum of proof must exceed substantiality, and the evidence must be competent and based on direct knowledge. It treated such a charge as penal in character and applied the rule that removal grounds grounded on misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or incompetence require establishment of the charge with a standard akin to beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with analogies to criminal evidentiary rules on admissibility.

Assessment of the Receipt and the Failure to Prove Acceptance or Receipt by the Judge

The Court found that Tan presented no evidence showing that Judge Usman in fact accepted or received money—or anything—from Jaime Cui, Jr. It also found no evidence that Judge Usman unlawfully or wrongfully used official functions for personal benefit. The Court held that the mere presentation of a receipt stating that PHP 250,000.00 was received by Nilda Cinco “in behalf of” the judge, for purposes relating to Civil Case No. 7681 and Criminal Case No. 6536, was insufficient by itself to prove that Judge Usman received the money. The Court agreed with the OCA’s observation that the receipt might indicate that money existed or was received by someone, but it did not prove that the judge himself received it.

The Court further faulted the complainant’s evidentiary foundation. It noted that, although Tan presented the receipt, she did not allege how she acquired it or from whom she obtained the document. The Court also held that the receipt’s due execution and authenticity were not sufficiently established. It relied on the fact that both Mr. Cui and Ms. Cinco swore in their affidavits and during the hearing that no money was received and no receipt was issued. The Court also noted that, despite notice, Tan failed to attend the hearing, which prevented her from substantiating and corroborating her claim.

Effect of Prior Proceedings and the Presumption of Regularity

While the Court’s disposit

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Josephine Jazmines Tan filed an administrative complaint against Judge Sibanah E. Usman, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan City, Samar, for bribery and corruption.
The complaint arose from allegations involving Civil Case No. 7681 and Criminal Case No. 6536, both then pending before Branch 28, presided by the respondent judge.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed the respondent to comment on charges that included Gross Misconduct, Knowingly rendering an Unjust Order, Abuse of Power, and Dishonesty.
The respondent argued for dismissal based on res judicata, invoking a prior administrative case involving the same respondent.
Due to conflicting versions, the OCA recommended referral to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals in Cebu City for raffle of the investigating justice.
The complaint was raffled to Court of Appeals Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, who investigated and recommended dismissal for lack of evidence.
The Supreme Court adopted the investigating justice’s findings and dismissed the administrative complaint for failure of the complainant to substantiate the charges.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that, in relation to Civil Case No. 7681 and Criminal Case No. 6536, the respondent judge was paid P250,000.00 by the opponent, Allan Tan, through Jaime Cui, Jr.
The complainant claimed the payment was evidenced by a receipt stating that P250,000.00 was received from Mr. Jaime Cui, Jr. as full payment in CC No. 6536 & 7681 “to be given to Judge S.E. Usman,” and the receipt was allegedly signed by Nilda C. Cinco, OIC-Branch Clerk of Court.
The complainant also accused the respondent of knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order when he cited her in contempt.
The complainant invoked A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266 to support her position that the respondent had already been found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
The respondent denied receipt of any money from Jaime Cui, Jr. or any person regarding the subject cases.
The respondent asserted that the complainant fabricated the acknowledgment receipt by making it appear that Nilda C. Cinco received the money and signed the receipt on his behalf.
Nilda C. Cinco, in an Affidavit dated October 8, 2012, denied receiving any money from Jaime Cui, Jr. and denied issuing any acknowledgment receipt.
Jaime Cui, Jr., in an Affidavit dated October 8, 2012, denied having disbursed money to the respondent or to Nilda Cinco, including his denial of such acts even in open court on August 28, 2009.
The respondent argued further that Civil Case No. 7681 was still being tried before Branch 29 at the time complainant claimed she obtained information about the alleged bribery in February or March 2009, and was only transferred to Branch 28 on June 25, 2009.
The respondent also contended that Allan Tan was killed on October 28, 2008, making it impossible for Tan to have given orders to Jaime Cui, Jr. on the alleged bribery dates.

Issues Presented

The Court had to determine whether the complainant proved that the respondent judge committed bribery and corruption by receiving or unlawfully benefiting from money related to the pending cases.
The Court also had to consider whether the administrative complaint’s other theory, involving the respondent’s alleged knowingly unjust interlocutory order and contempt citation, could warrant liability.
The Court addressed the respondent’s procedural argument that the administrative complaint should be dismissed for res judicata, based on A.M. No. RTJ-11-2266.

Applicable Legal Standards

In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the acts complained of.
Where the complainant fails to show the facts underlying the claim satisfactorily, the respondent is under no obligation to pr