SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 1530-MJ. May 30, 1978.]
NENITA CASTAÑETO, Complainant, v. HON. BUENAVENTURA S. NIDOY, Municipal Judge of Binalonan, Pangasinan, Respondents.
SYNOPSIS
After hearing in an unlawful detainer case, respondent judge decided the case against the defendants. Defendants appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance, and the records of the case, including the transcripts of the stenographic notes, were forwarded thereto. The decision was affirmed with a modification. Complainant claimed that respondent, during the proceedings, did not keep records or writings and that the transcripts of stenographic notes were tampered with, to the prejuice of the defendants. Respondents averred that the judgment was rendered strictly on the basis of the evidence presented free from bias and influence.
The Supreme Court found the charges baseless and unfounded and ruled that the stenographic notes of the proceedings and the transcripts thereof were records of the case, and that complainan should have applied to the trial court for correction of the alleged tampered stenographic notes. It found that the imputation of prejudice was purely conjectural for significantly, the decision was affirmed byn the Court of First Instance with only a modification.
Case dismissed.
The Supreme Court found the charges baseless and unfounded and ruled that the stenographic notes of the proceedings and the transcripts thereof were records of the case, and that complainan should have applied to the trial court for correction of the alleged tampered stenographic notes. It found that the imputation of prejudice was purely conjectural for significantly, the decision was affirmed byn the Court of First Instance with only a modification.
Case dismissed.
SYLLABUS
1. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES; EFFECT OF COMPLAINANT’S OWN ADMISSION AND OMISSION. — Complainant’s admission of the existence of stenographic notes of the proceedings which were transcribed and elevated to the Court of First Instance when the judgment was appealed and his failure to apply to the court for correction of the alleged tampered transcripts of stenographic notes negate complainant’s charges that the judge did not keep records of the proceedings and that the transcript of records were tampered with to the prejudice of defendants.
2. ID.; IMPUTATION OF PREJUDICE; CHARGE DISMISSED IF BASED ON CONJECTURES. — The imputation of prejudice on the part of a judge in favor of a party to a case should be dismissed where the same appears purely conjectural, since the complaint supplied no detail whatsoever in support of the said charge, and, significantly, the questioned decision was affirmed with one modification, by the Court of First Instance on appeal.
2. ID.; IMPUTATION OF PREJUDICE; CHARGE DISMISSED IF BASED ON CONJECTURES. — The imputation of prejudice on the part of a judge in favor of a party to a case should be dismissed where the same appears purely conjectural, since the complaint supplied no detail whatsoever in support of the said charge, and, significantly, the questioned decision was affirmed with one modification, by the Court of First Instance on appeal.
R E S O L U T I O N
ANTONIO, J.:
On February 10, 1977, a letter complaint was filed with this Court by Nenita Castañeto, alleging that a complaint for unlawful detainer 1 was lodged against her in the Municipal Court of Binalonan, Pangasinan, presided over by Judge Buenaventura S. Nidoy; that during the proceedings, the said Judge did not kept record or writings; that the transcript of stenographic notes were tampered with so that portions thereof prejudicial to the plaintiff’s case were deleted, and additions favorable thereto were made; that a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff; and that complainant requests that a new trial be granted her so that the decision to be rendered will not be based on the evidence allegedly designed to be in favor of plaintiff in said case.
On March 8, 1977, respondent Municipal Judge Buenaventura S. Nidoy denied the allegations made by complainant, stating that for every trial of the aforesaid unlawful detainer case, a stenographer was always present, and in fact, transcripts of the stenographic notes were made and forwarded to the Court of First Instance when the judgment was appealed; 2 that the case was decided on the basis of the evidence before the Court; that, contrary to complainant’s insinuation, the judgment was rendered not on the basis of bias and influence but strictly on the basis of said evidence; that, not satisfied with the decision, complainant appealed the same to the Court of First Instance; and that said decision was affirmed with modification by said appellate court. Respondent Judge, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant’s allegation that no record of the case was kept by the respondent Judge is clearly unfounded, since stenographic notes were taken and transcribed in connection with the unlawful detainer case afore-mentioned. Moreover, said notes and transcripts were forwarded, with the entire records, to the Court of First Instance when the judgment was appealed by the defendants. Complainant’s own allegation that the transcripts were modified to suit the case of the plaintiff belies the charge that no record was kept, since she admits that said transcripts were in existence. This latter charge is likewise without basis, inasmuch as complainant’s remedy, if she believed that the transcripts had really been tampered with, was to apply to the court for the correction of the same. This remedy was not availed of by her.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Lastly, the imputation of prejudice on the part of respondent Judge in favor of the plaintiff appears purely conjectural, as complainant supplied no detail whatsoever in support of said charge, and, significantly, the decision was affirmed, with one modification, by the Court of First Instance.
We likewise take note of the fact that complainant’s participation and interest in the unlawful detainer case cannot be determined from the records before Us. The parties in said case are Carmelita Castañeto, as plaintiff, and the spouses Andres Castañeto and Anita Obriam, as defendants, and neither the decision of the Municipal Court nor that of the Court of First Instance yields information regarding the personality of Nenita A. Castañeto.chanrobles law library : red
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
On March 8, 1977, respondent Municipal Judge Buenaventura S. Nidoy denied the allegations made by complainant, stating that for every trial of the aforesaid unlawful detainer case, a stenographer was always present, and in fact, transcripts of the stenographic notes were made and forwarded to the Court of First Instance when the judgment was appealed; 2 that the case was decided on the basis of the evidence before the Court; that, contrary to complainant’s insinuation, the judgment was rendered not on the basis of bias and influence but strictly on the basis of said evidence; that, not satisfied with the decision, complainant appealed the same to the Court of First Instance; and that said decision was affirmed with modification by said appellate court. Respondent Judge, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant’s allegation that no record of the case was kept by the respondent Judge is clearly unfounded, since stenographic notes were taken and transcribed in connection with the unlawful detainer case afore-mentioned. Moreover, said notes and transcripts were forwarded, with the entire records, to the Court of First Instance when the judgment was appealed by the defendants. Complainant’s own allegation that the transcripts were modified to suit the case of the plaintiff belies the charge that no record was kept, since she admits that said transcripts were in existence. This latter charge is likewise without basis, inasmuch as complainant’s remedy, if she believed that the transcripts had really been tampered with, was to apply to the court for the correction of the same. This remedy was not availed of by her.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red
Lastly, the imputation of prejudice on the part of respondent Judge in favor of the plaintiff appears purely conjectural, as complainant supplied no detail whatsoever in support of said charge, and, significantly, the decision was affirmed, with one modification, by the Court of First Instance.
We likewise take note of the fact that complainant’s participation and interest in the unlawful detainer case cannot be determined from the records before Us. The parties in said case are Carmelita Castañeto, as plaintiff, and the spouses Andres Castañeto and Anita Obriam, as defendants, and neither the decision of the Municipal Court nor that of the Court of First Instance yields information regarding the personality of Nenita A. Castañeto.chanrobles law library : red
WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of merit.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Concepcion, Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., took no part.
Endnotes:
1. Docketed as Civil Case No. MC-B-330, entitled "Carmelita Castañeto, Plaintiff, versus Andres Castañeto, Et Al., Defendants, for Unlawful Detainer."cralaw virtua1aw library
2. Docketed as Civil Case No. U-3008, entitled "Carmelita Castañeto, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus Spouses Andres Castañeto and Anita Obriam, for Unlawful Detainer.
