G.R. No. A.M. No. 282-J August 15, 1974
Anuncio G. Valle, complainant, vs. Hon. Jose C. Campos, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Anuncio G. Valle filed an administrative complaint on March 28, 1973, charging respondent Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr. with undue partiality and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from the judge’s alleged improper actuations in Civil Case No. Q-16686 before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After the respondent judge submitted his comment, the Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit in a resolution dated May 3, 1973. The complainant subsequently filed motions for reconsideration, leading to a referral of the case to Justice Godofredo Ramos of the Court of Appeals for a formal investigation, report, and recommendation.
While the investigation was pending, the complainant, who had relocated to Glendale, California, U.S.A., filed a verified motion to dismiss or withdraw his complaint on July 22, 1974. In his motion, Valle stated that he initially filed the complaint after being convinced by parties interested in purchasing the Tetoron textiles involved in the underlying civil case. Upon personal investigation and verification of the respondent judge’s submissions, he found the allegations of irregularity and favoritism to be unfounded. He confirmed that all textile releases ordered by the judge were made only upon full payment or deposit to the concerned agencies, and he concluded he was misled by a misapprehension of facts, expressing a desire to relieve the judge from further injury.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr. should be dismissed based on the complainant’s motion for withdrawal.

RULING

Yes, the administrative case is dismissed with prejudice. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of Investigating Justice Godofredo Ramos, who found the grounds for withdrawal to be tenable. The Court’s ruling is anchored on the principle that the withdrawal of a complaint, especially when made in good faith and based on the complainant’s realization that the charges are unsubstantiated, warrants dismissal. The complainant’s sworn motion explicitly retracted the core allegations, acknowledging that his fears of irregular releases were unwarranted and that the judge’s actions were proper, as all releases were contingent on full payment. The Court considered that the complainant, who had initiated the case, no longer had any interest in prosecuting it and that the charges could not be substantiated without his participation. Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate as it finally disposes of the matter, preventing its re-filing and relieving the respondent judge from the burden of the unprosecuted accusation, thereby serving the interests of judicial administration.