A.M. No. P-1592. August 29, 1980. ESPERANZA ESQUIROS, complainant, vs. MIGUEL G. BERNARDO and ELPEDIFORO T. IPAC, Deputy Sheriffs, Office of the City Sheriff, Pasay City, respondents.
FACTS

Complainant Esperanza Esquiros, the aunt of a judgment debtor named Eduardo Esquiros, filed a sworn letter-complaint charging Deputy Sheriffs Miguel G. Bernardo and Elpediforo T. Ipac with unethical conduct and extortion. She alleged that on January 10, 1977, the respondents, accompanied by the plaintiff’s lawyer in an ejectment case against her nephew, demanded she pay her nephew’s obligation and attorney’s fees, threatening to implicate her. She further claimed that on January 17, 1977, the respondents visited her at her workplace and demanded P200.00 as reimbursement for their expenses in locating a jeep owned by her nephew, which had been levied upon in execution. When she refused, she was summoned for investigation and later found herself charged with theft of the jeep, which she alleged was instigated by the respondents due to their failed extortion attempt.
The respondents, in their joint comment, denied all allegations of misconduct. They explained they were lawfully implementing a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 11199 by levying upon the debtor’s jeep. They asserted that the complainant interfered by attempting to take the levied vehicle, claiming it as payment for a personal debt. They advised her to file a proper third-party claim and return the jeep. When she failed to comply, they reported the incident, leading to the filing of a theft complaint. They maintained their actions were in good faith and within their official duties.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative charges for unethical conduct and extortion against the deputy sheriffs should be sustained.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for failure to prosecute. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation. During the proceedings, the complainant executed and affirmed under oath an Affidavit of Desistance. In this affidavit, she explicitly stated that after confrontations at the Fiscal’s Office and hearing the respondents’ explanations, she was fully convinced the complaint arose from a misunderstanding and that the respondents acted without malice or intent to extort money from her. She expressed her desire to withdraw the complaint, attributing her earlier delay in doing so to a mistaken belief that the dismissal of the related criminal case automatically terminated the administrative matter.
The Court, adopting the investigating judge’s recommendation, approved the dismissal. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that administrative proceedings require evidence to substantiate charges. The complainant’s voluntary and sworn desistance, wherein she retracted her accusations and affirmed the respondents’ lack of malicious intent, effectively vitiated the factual basis for the complaint. Without an active complainant willing to pursue the charges and present evidence, and given the affirmative recantation clarifying the actions as official duties misunderstood, there was no sufficient ground to proceed. The dismissal was thus warranted due to the failure to prosecute and the absence of a prima facie case of misconduct against the respondents.