AM P 98 1269; (May, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 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.
FACTS
Complainant Feliciana Dagsa-an charged respondent Rodolfo Sel Conag, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte, with failure to pay a debt amounting to P17,400.00. She alleged that respondent, a married man with whom she had an illicit relationship, took advantage of her moments of weakness and lack of education to obtain the loan, which he used to purchase jewelry and personal accessories. Respondent vehemently denied the accusation, claiming the administrative action was instigated by Prosecutor Nemesio M. Buot, Jr., in retaliation for a complaint respondent had filed against him. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Buenaventura C. Vilbar, but due to his medical unfitness, it was reassigned to Executive Judge Fortunito Madrona. Judge Madrona recommended dismissal after complainant executed a sworn manifestation of withdrawal and desistance, stating she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. The Office of the Court Administrator concurred with the recommendation, noting the complaint could not prosper without the complainant’s participation.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint against respondent should be dismissed due to the complainant’s withdrawal and desistance.
RULING
Yes, the administrative complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court held that while the withdrawal or desistance of a complainant does not automatically warrant dismissal of an administrative complaint, as the Court retains its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary, dismissal is appropriate where the case cannot proceed without the active cooperation of the complainant. In this instance, the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator found such a situation to exist. However, the Court admonished respondent Rodolfo Sel Conag for conduct unbecoming of a court officer, specifically for attempting to improperly obtain information about the complainant using the Court’s letterhead to sully her character and reputation.