Duduaco v. Laquindanum

25. Duduaco v.
Laquindanum
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601
August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 428
(Clear and convincing evidence)
DOCTRINE:
Administrative proceedings against judges are by nature, highly penal in character and are to be governed
by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the administrative charge should
thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
FACTS:
Complainant Mercedes G. Duduaco charged respondent Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum with grave
misconduct, abuse of judicial office and/or gross ignorance of the law.
Complainant alleged that respondent brought her vehicle to the Toyota Service Center for repairs. When her
vehicle was ready for pickup, she was advised that it would only be release upon payment of deductible franchise,
to which respondent allegedly refused to do so while stating that the same was covered by her insurance.
Respondent allegedly shouted that she was a judge and insisted on meeting the manager of the office. When the
respondent was told that the manager (complainant) was in a meeting, she furiously replied that she should be
given preferential treatment over said meeting. Respondent asked for a demand letter and upon presentation
thereof, she paid it under protest. When one of the employees required the respondent to sign the release of claim
with subrogation, she refused to sign it for it was in blank and that as a judge, she knew better than to sign a blank
form. One of the employees offered to fill the blanks out but the respondent still refused to sign the same.
Respondent then left the service center without her car. Subsequently, respondent filed a case for replevin against
the respondent.
Respondent, on the other hand, denied that she threw her weight around and abused her judicial authority.
She paid the deductible franchise under protest and that she requested the execution of a demand letter to serve as
roof of her claim for refund. When respondent and her party were about to leave, an employee of the service center
ran after them and told the respondent that she needed to sign a release form. She was given a blank release form
to which to which she refused to sign. The employee then angrily said “Di fill upan!”, then took back the form and
never came back. Since respondent could not leave the service center with her vehicle, she left without her car. A
month after the incident, the complainant together with the employees of the service center went to the sala of the
respondent to apologize.
The investigating justice of the CA and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
WON the complainant was able to prove the allegations in their complaint against the respondent judge
RULING:
NO. Administrative complaint against Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum is dismissed.
In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
allegations in their complaints. Administrative proceedings against judges are by nature, highly penal in character
and are to be governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The quantum of proof required to support the
administrative charges should thus be more substantial and they must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Respondent’s refusal to pay the deductible franchise was justified. Her insistence that the demand to pay be
in writing, together with her refusal to affix her signature in the blank form, did not amount to grave misconduct,
abuse of judicial office or gross ignorance of the law. She was only exercising her legal right. Had respondent
signed the blank form, she would be deemed to have waived her earlier protest and would have lost the right to
claim for refund
During the formal investigation, she admitted that she was absent when the event transpired on June 23,
2001,22 which means that she has no personal and direct knowledge of the incident. Yet, in the verification portion
of the complaint, she claimed that all the allegations therein were true and correct of her own knowledge and
belief.23 Significantly, she also went to respondent’s office and apologized.
Human nature dictates that redress for a wrong done is ordinarily sought by the aggrieved with zeal. Yet, it
appears that it was more than eight (8) months after the incident that complainant and Toyota-Davao filed this
complaint against an alleged “erring” member of the bench. Verily, the delay militates against the veracity of their
allegations.
Moreover, complainant filed the instant administrative case after Toyota-Davao lost possession of the vehicle in
favor of respondent and after she refused to settle the replevin suit she filed against them. More specifically, the
instant complaint was filed only on March 4, 2002 or about eight (8) months after respondent filed the replevin case
and secured the writ on July 4, 2001. As the Investigating Justice fittingly observed, “the timing couldn’t be worse.”
Therefore, Administrative complaint against Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum is dismissed.

Duduaco v. Laquindanum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duduaco v. Laquindanum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duduaco v. Laquindanum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

25. Duduaco v.

Therefore, Administrative complaint against Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum is dismissed.

You might also like