AM 294; (September 1975) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-294. September 5, 1975. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CASIGURAN, QUEZON, complainant, vs. ANTONIO VALENCIA, Clerk-Stenographer, Municipal Court of Casiguran, Quezon, respondent.
FACTS
The Municipal Council of Casiguran, Quezon, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Antonio Valencia, Clerk-Stenographer of the Municipal Court, through Resolution No. 93 (also numbered 91) dated August 22, 1972. The complaint alleged that Valencia had been absent from his office since June 15, 1972, to the prejudice of public service. This complaint was part of a broader action that also implicated Municipal Judge Virgilio Morales for absenteeism, a separate case which ultimately led to the judge’s removal from office.
The case against Valencia was referred to District Judge Ernesto P. Valencia of the Court of First Instance of Aurora Subprovince for investigation. After conducting the investigation and evaluating the evidence presented by both the complainant councilors and the respondent, the Investigating Judge submitted a report dated July 29, 1974. In his report, he extensively detailed the evidence and concluded that it was insufficient to prove Valencia was absent from his station in Casiguran during the period from June 15 to August 22, 1972. Based on this finding, he recommended the dismissal of the charges.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Antonio Valencia should be held administratively liable for habitual absenteeism as charged by the Municipal Council.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The ruling was grounded on two primary considerations that collectively negated the basis for administrative sanction. First, the Court accorded weight to the factual findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge, Judge Ernesto P. Valencia. His investigation concluded that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the claim that respondent was absent from his official station during the specified period. In administrative proceedings, the findings of the investigating judge, who had the opportunity to directly assess the credibility of witnesses and evidence, are generally respected.
Second, and decisively, the Court considered a subsequent joint affidavit executed and submitted on July 14, 1975, by the incumbent members of the Municipal Council of Casiguran themselves. In this affidavit, the councilors explicitly stated that after their own investigation, they discovered the complaint arose from a “pure misunderstanding.” They formally prayed for the dismissal of the case. This affidavit constituted a retraction and desistance by the very complainants, effectively withdrawing the accusation and clarifying that there was no factual basis for the charge. Consequently, with the complaining body itself disavowing the allegations and the investigating judge finding no evidence of wrongdoing, there remained no legal or factual foundation to proceed with the administrative case. The dismissal was thus ordered.