ADVISORY: |
The Supreme Court E-Library will undergo a system
maintenance on March 28-31, 2024 and will be inaccessible during this period. Thank you for your understanding! |
CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
352 Phil. 619
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. P-98-1269, May 13, 1998 ]
FELICIANA DAGSA-AN, COMPLAINANT,
VS. RODOLFO SEL CONAG, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON,
LEYTE, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
VITUG, J.:
In an affidavit complaint,
dated 27 January 1996, Feliciana Dagsa-an charged Rodolfo Sel Conag, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court
of Polompon, Leyte, with failure to pay his debt amounting to P17,400.00. Complainant alleged that respondent, a
married man with whom she had an illicit relationship, took advantage of her
moments of weakness and lack of education in obtaining the loan which he had
used to purchase pieces of jewelry and
other personal accessories.
The accusation
made by complainant was vehemently denied by respondent who claimed that the
administrative action had only been an offshoot of his complaint gainst
Prosecutor Nemesio M. Buot, Jr., who instigated the instant administrative
case.
In its
resolution of 10 February 1997, this Court resolved to refer the case to
Executive Judge Buenaventura C. Vilbar of the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte, for investigation,
report and recommendation. Considering, however, that Judge Vilbar was
undergoing medical treatment and physically unfit at the time, the case was
reassigned, in the Court's resolution of 23 June 1997, to Executive Judge
Fortunito Mandrona of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City.
In his
compliance, dated 04 September 1997, Judge Madrona recommended the dismissal of
the complaint due to the formal withdrawal and desistance of complainant who
manifested, under oath, that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
In its
memorandum, dated 02 January 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator.
Through DCA Bernardo P. Abesamis, observing that "the complaint will not prosper in the absence of the
participation of the complainant," likewise recommended the dismissal of
the complaint.
The withdrawal
of a complaint or the desistance of a complaintant does not necessarily warrant
the dismissal of an administrative complaint. In Vasquez vs. Malvar,[1] the Court categorically
expressed that "to condition administrative actions upon the will of every
complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is
to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring member of the
Judiciary."[2] In instances, however, where
an administrative case cannot proceed without the active cooperation of the complainant, the Court may find itself
with hardly any alternative but to dismiss the complaint.[3] This kind
of situation, according to the investigating judge the OCA, is what has
unfortunately occurred in this instance.
Be that as it
may, the Court cannot write finis to this matter without making its
observation that in his effort to defend himself, respondent has evidently
attempted, using the Court's letterhead, to improperly obtain any information
about complainant that could sullen her character and reputation. For this
conduct unbecoming of an officer of a court of justice, respondent deserves
admonition.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint is
DISMISSED for lack of evidence. Respondent Rodolfo Sel Conag, however, is ADMONISHED for not having been
more circumspect in his actuation than heretofore shown.
SO ORDERED.