AC L 165 J; (August, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-165-J, August 31, 1970
Iluminado S. Espinas, Complainant, v. Hon. Perfecto Quicho, Respondent.
FACTS
On January 15, 1970, the Supreme Court received a letter-complaint dated June 1, 1969, from Iluminado S. Espinas, forwarded by the Department of Justice, preferring administrative charges against Hon. Perfecto Quicho, District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay. The complaint stemmed from Land Registration Case No. N-352, entitled “Felipe Y. Gutierrez, Applicant, Iluminado Espinas, Oppositor,” which was allegedly submitted for decision on October 15, 1966, and decided adversely to Espinas on October 11, 1967. Complainant alleged that he lost the case because he failed to comply with a request from the judge, that the decision took longer than the 90-day period allowed by regulations, and that the judge continued to receive his salary despite pending undecided cases. Complainant also cited “common rumors” that respondent fraternized with lawyers who had cases in his court, including going to “nightspots,” and that these lawyers were favored in his decisions. In his answer, respondent judge attributed the delay to inadequate clerical staff and lack of legal aid, denied the allegations of fraternization and favoritism, and stated that no improper request was made to the complainant. The case was referred to Justice Jose N. Mendoza of the Court of Appeals for investigation. At the hearings on March 30, 1970, and June 8, 1970, only respondent appeared; complainant failed to appear without explanation, leading the investigator to recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative charges against respondent Judge Perfecto Quicho should be dismissed due to complainant’s failure to prosecute and lack of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges. The Court noted that the complaint was filed nearly three years after the decision in question, and complainant failed to present any evidence to support his allegations regarding respondent’s behavior or improper motives in deciding the land registration case. The matter of respondent collecting his salary despite cases pending decision for over 90 days was already the subject of a separate administrative case (Administrative Case No. 138-J). Accordingly, the charges were dismissed without prejudice to any action that may be taken in the related administrative case.