AM 755; (January, 1978) (Digest)
A.M. No. 755-MJ. January 31, 1978. ROGELIO PESOLE, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE LUCIO L. RODRIGUEZ, of Tabogon, Cebu, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rogelio Pesole charged Municipal Judge Lucio L. Rodriguez with misconduct for allegedly acting as counsel for Pedro Apa in a preliminary investigation for falsification before the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu and for notarizing documents that formed the basis of the charge. Respondent Judge denied the accusations, explaining he notarized the affidavit in his capacity as an ex-officio notary public and that during the investigation, he acted merely as a “moderator” or “amicus curiae” with the Fiscal’s implied permission, not as legal counsel. Subsequent to his initial comment, the respondent filed multiple petitions seeking a formal investigation or dismissal of the complaint. While the administrative case was pending, the President accepted the respondent’s courtesy resignation.
The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu for investigation. Before the scheduled hearings, complainant Pesole formally withdrew his complaint, citing lack of interest and stating he would not appear to substantiate the charges. Despite this withdrawal, respondent Judge insisted on presenting his evidence to clear his name.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative charges of misconduct against respondent Judge are substantiated by evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated respondent Judge. The Court emphasized that charges of judicial misconduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Here, the complainant not only withdrew his complaint and failed to present any evidence but also the respondent successfully presented documentary proofs demonstrating the falsity of the allegations. These documents included a certification from the Provincial Fiscal stating that the records showed no appearance by the respondent as counsel, a stenographer’s certification, relevant transcripts, and a certification confirming the notarization was done in the Judge’s official capacity. The Investigating Judge’s recommendation for dismissal was found to be well-taken.
The Court cited analogous precedents, such as Valle v. Campos, Jr. and Pawaki v. Malik, where complaints were likewise dismissed due to the complainants’ failure to substantiate the charges upon withdrawal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the acceptance of the respondent’s courtesy resignation did not render the case moot, as the Court retains jurisdiction to exonerate or censure a respondent to serve the ends of justice, citing Perez v. Abiera. The primary purpose in this instance was to afford the respondent an opportunity to vindicate his name, which the evidence supported. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.