MAGDALENA U. VERIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EFREN E. TAGALA, RESPONDENT.

In this complaint for disbarment on the ground of immorality, complainant
imputes upon Atty. Efren E. Tagala,
Registrar of the Commission on Elections in Mercedes, Camarines
Norte, the commission of acts amounting to rape, malicious
mischief, estafa and habitual drunkenness.  Required by this Court to file an answer,
respondent did so, where he denied the material averments of the complaint and
contended that in filing the case, complainant was actuated by ill-will,
personal dislike for respondent and his wife, and a desire for revenge.

This Court referred the case to the Solicitor General for
investigation, report and recommendation. 
Upon the parties’ motions, the Solicitor-General directed the Provincial
Fiscal of Camarines Norte to receive the parties’
evidence, and, thereafter, submit a report.

Special Counsel Silvestre V. Garfin of
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, to whom the investigation of the case was
assigned by the Provincial Fiscal, set the case for hearing on various dates
beginning March 21, 1969; but on each date either complainant or her counsel,
or both, failed to appear despite due notice to them, or moved for
postponement, or failed to oppose respondent’s motions for postponement, until
August 22, 1969, when both parties, together with their respective counsel, appeared
before the investigator; but then complainant intimated her wish to have the
case amicably settled, to which respondent expressed his assent.

This development led to the postponement of the investigation to
September 10, 1969, on which date complainant’s counsel and respondent,
together with his counsel, appeared; but the investigation had to be postponed
once more in view of complainant’s absence. 
As early as June 17, 1969,
the investigator had warned complainant that his office would be constrained to
recommend the dismissal of the case if she failed to appear at a subsequent
hearing.  When the case was again called
for investigation on October 28, 1969,
complainant and respondent, as well as respondent’s counsel, appeared, but this
time it was complainant’s counsel who was absent.  The investigator then and there issued a resolution
recommending the dismissal of the case. 
Copy thereof was received by complainant and her counsel that same
day.  Complainant, either personally or
thru counsel, did not file a motion to reconsider the resolution.

On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Solicitor General
recommends the dismissal of the present case, because, according to him, it is
apparent that complainant is no longer interested in pursuing her complaint,
which was filed with this Court as far back as March 30, 1967.  In the premises, this Court finds the
Solicitor General’s recommendation to be in order, and, accordingly, grants the
same.

WHEREFORE, the instant case is hereby ordered dismissed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.