AM 792; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 792 July 30, 1982
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, complainant, vs. JESUS M. PONCE, respondent.
FACTS
The National Bureau of Investigation referred an investigation report to the Supreme Court, finding respondent attorney Jesus M. Ponce guilty of various fraudulent acts against Angela Sauler. The report was forwarded to the Solicitor General for appropriate action. The Solicitor General’s office required Sauler to submit a formal complaint specifying the grounds for disbarment, as mandated by the Rules of Court.
Sauler merely accused Ponce of deceit and gross misconduct concerning several Transfer Certificates of Title but failed to submit a verified written complaint with supporting affidavits and documents as expressly required. Despite follow-up letters from the Solicitor General emphasizing the need for a proper complaint, Sauler did not comply. Instead, she had already filed a criminal case for estafa against Ponce before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative disbarment case against respondent should proceed given the complainant’s failure to prosecute and comply with procedural requirements.
RULING
The Supreme Court provisionally dismissed the disbarment case. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that administrative proceedings, especially those as severe as disbarment, require proper initiation and diligent prosecution by the complainant in accordance with procedural rules. The Rules of Court (Rule 139) mandate that a complaint must distinctly state the facts and be supported by affidavits and documentary evidence. Sauler’s failure to submit this requisite pleading, despite explicit directives, constituted a clear lack of interest in pursuing the administrative charge.
Furthermore, Sauler’s written reply explicitly requested a provisional dismissal until the criminal case was resolved, citing her imminent departure abroad. This request objectively demonstrated her abandonment of the administrative prosecution at that time. The Court, noting the Solicitor General’s recommendation, held that forcing the case to proceed without a complainant willing to substantiate the allegations would be contrary to procedural order and fairness. The dismissal is without prejudice, preserving the right to refile after the criminal proceedings, thereby balancing the need for a properly prosecuted case with the potential gravity of the charges.