G.R. No. A.C. No. 116; August 29, 1969
Ambrosio Diamalon alias Ampuang Diamalon, complainant, vs. Hon. Jesus Quintillan, respondent.

FACTS

On March 29, 1967, complainant Ambrosio Diamalon filed an administrative complaint for serious misconduct in office against respondent Judge Jesus Quintillan. The complaint alleged that Diamalon, who claimed to have been merely an eyewitness to an incident, was subsequently included in a murder information. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and he was detained without being given an opportunity to appear and defend himself. The misconduct imputed to the respondent judge consisted of issuing the warrant of arrest and causing the unlawful detention without observing the due process requirement.
The Court required the respondent judge to answer. In his answer filed on June 21, 1967, Judge Quintillan denied the charge, asserting that he had fully investigated and fairly appreciated the evidence against the complainant before issuing the warrant. He argued that under the rules, specifically Rule 112, Section 13, a judge of the Court of First Instance could simultaneously conduct the preliminary examination and preliminary investigation for cases directly filed with him. He maintained that for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest, the presence of the accused was not necessary, as such presence was only indispensable at the second stage of the preliminary investigation. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Subsequently, on August 7, 1969, the respondent filed an urgent petition for dismissal. He stated that the complaint had no valid cause and informed the Court that he had already resigned from his position as District Judge on August 12, 1967, with the President accepting the resignation effective at the close of office hours on August 31, 1967, as shown by a letter from Assistant Executive Secretary Gilberto M. Duavit. The petition further noted that the pendency of this administrative case was hindering the processing of his application for retirement gratuity and that he was seriously ill and confined in a hospital.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jesus Quintillan should be dismissed in light of his resignation from office.

RULING

Yes. The Court granted the urgent petition for dismissal. The Court held that an administrative proceeding is predicated on the respondent holding an office or position in the government. Since the respondent judge’s resignation had been unquestionably accepted, effective August 31, 1967, there was no longer any obstacle to dismissing the case. Consequently, the Court found it unnecessary to inquire further into the merits of the due process charge imputed to the respondent judge. The case was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.