#16. NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA V.

JUDGE REYNALDO BELLOSILLO

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1241January 20, 2000

FACTS:
 The complainant was hired as a counsel of one Mariam Colapo in a Criminal case in
which the former filed a Manifestation praying for the honorable Court to allow the
accused to post bail.
 In his (complainant) affidavit, he aver that the respondent judge talked to his client
before the granting of bail in the absence of the complainant. And returned to the
petitioner removing him as her counsel ordered by the respondent Judge and replaced
the complainant with one Atty. Puhawan of the POLAO Quezon City.
 The complainant, having no reason what impelled the respondent judge with anger to
order his replacement, filed his notice of withdrawal, in conformity with his client’s
decision. Thus, this present complaint.
 Respondent Judge in his answer denied the allegation contending that Meriam
appeared before the respondent judge to post bail unassisted by the complainant-
counsel, and that Meriam is the one suggested the respondent Judge that she was
going to change her counsel because she did not like the idea of paying somebody who
could not represent her at the time she needed him most.
 Further, Respondent-judge added in his answer that the motion for withdraw filed by
the complainant is a matter strictly just between the two of them, to which respondent
was never a privy; that had complainant be more prudent, he could have just verified
from the respondent the veracity of his client’s statement which for legal intents and
purposes are inadmissible for being hearsay, thus, this unfounded time consuming
Complaint could have been avoided.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Affidavit-complaint will prosper.

RULING:

NO, the complaint will not prosper.

Within the constitutional guaranty of due process of law, “the employment or

profession of a person is a property right.”

In the present case, the Court found that the evidence adduced by the complainant
was insufficient to substantiate the charges against the respondent judge. The only evidence
offered by complainant was the Affidavit of his client Meriam Colapo, and it cannot be the
basis of a finding of guilt even in an administrative case. The complainant’s failure to present
his principal witness (presently in Brunei) albeit complainant claim that she is willing to testify
is not sufficient to lend credence to the present charge since respondent has every right to
cross examine said witness. In the absence of other evidence to prove his charges was fatal
and said Affidavit cannot be given credence and is inadmissible without the said affiant being
placed on the witness stand. Therefore, the respondent judge cannot be adjudge guilty of
the charges without confronting the said witness, Meriam Colapo, otherwise his right to
due process would be infringed.