AM 727; (May, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-727 May 5, 1977
MIGUELA R. LUYON, complainant, vs. ATTY. JUAN G. ATENCIA, respondent.
FACTS
Miguela R. Luyon filed a verified complaint on August 25, 1966, denouncing Atty. Juan G. Atencia for alleged unethical conduct. The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 562, an action for support and acknowledgment filed by Atencia on behalf of Luyon and her minor child against Armando A. Ala. Luyon alleged that Atencia engaged in “secret contacts” with Ala and received money from him, thereby betraying her trust and confidence as her counsel. She requested an investigation into his conduct.
In his detailed answer, Atty. Atencia categorically denied the charges. He explained the circumstances surrounding the case and asserted that Luyon’s complaint was motivated by ulterior purposes. He prayed for the dismissal of the administrative case. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint for unethical conduct against Atty. Juan G. Atencia should be dismissed given the complainant’s subsequent manifestations of disinterest.
RULING
Yes, the case is dismissed. The Supreme Court, through Justice Aquino, ruled that the effective withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant renders a proper investigation impracticable. The record shows that after the case was endorsed to the Provincial Fiscal of Catanduanes, Luyon informed the fiscal in a letter dated August 5, 1974, that she was no longer interested in prosecuting her complaint. Subsequently, in 1976, she sent a telegram to the Office of the Solicitor General reiterating her lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
The Court reasoned that in the “present posture of the case,” it would be exceedingly difficult to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into the alleged unethical conduct without the participation and testimony of the complainant herself. By manifesting her desistance and withdrawing her complaint, Luyon effectively removed the foundational source of the charges. Administrative proceedings of this nature, while imbued with public interest, still require sufficient evidence and the cooperation of the complaining witness to establish the facts, especially when the charges are firmly denied by the respondent. Consequently, with the complainant having desisted, the Court found no compelling basis to proceed and ordered the dismissal of the case.