A.M. No. P-223 August 30, 1974
Vicente D. Español, complainant, vs. Atty. Manuel Nov. Duque, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Vicente D. Español, a former stenographer-at-large in the Judiciary Division of the Department of Justice, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Manuel Nov. Duque, a former Judicial Supervisor and Chief of the Stenographers’ Section. The complaint, filed over a year after Español’s termination in October 1972, alleged multiple charges including abuse of discretion, usurpation of judicial functions, violation of Civil Service rules, neglect of duty, and conduct unbecoming a lawyer. Español specifically contended that Duque improperly influenced the termination of his provisional appointment while securing the reappointment of other non-eligible stenographers, and that Duque wrongfully performed efficiency ratings and followed up on vouchers.
During the investigation by the Assistant Bar Confidant, complainant Español moved to withdraw his complaint, citing a “communication gap” as the reason for its filing. The investigator, however, proceeded given the serious nature of the allegations. The investigation revealed that the Secretary of Justice terminated Español’s appointment pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 7, which required recommendations from Judges, Clerks of Court, and Division Chiefs—a group to which respondent Duque, as a mere Section Chief, did not belong.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Manuel Nov. Duque is administratively liable for the acts alleged in the complaint.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic rests on the absence of factual and legal basis for the charges. First, on the alleged abuse of discretion in reappointments, respondent possessed no such discretionary or recommendatory power under the governing Memorandum Circular, which explicitly designated higher officials like Judges and Division Chiefs for that function. A charge of abusing a power one does not hold is legally untenable.
Second, the claim of usurpation of judicial prerogatives in rating performance fails. Under Civil Service rules, respondent, as the immediate supervisor and section chief for stenographers-at-large, retained the authority to evaluate complainant’s performance. A detail to a Court of First Instance did not sever this supervisory link, as field performance reports were properly channeled through the Department of Justice hierarchy. Furthermore, the charge of improper conduct, such as demanding loans or liquor for voucher follow-ups, was contradicted by evidence, including a letter from complainant himself pleading for such follow-up action. Witnesses presented failed to substantiate these allegations. The remaining charges of incompetence and neglect were deemed mere summations of the already debunked accusations. Consequently, no administrative liability attaches to the respondent.