ANUNCIO G. VALLE, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., RESPONDENT.

Valle versus Campos

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Anuncio G. Valle against Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr., charging the respondent with undue partiality and with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on account of his actuations in a civil case pending before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The complainant later withdrew his charges, and the Supreme Court was asked, in effect, whether that withdrawal should end the administrative proceeding. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats a complainant's desistance in an administrative case against a judge, and what it does with the charge once the complainant himself concedes that the facts he alleged were unfounded.

Procedural History

The complainant filed his administrative complaint on March 28, 1973. The respondent filed his comment on April 24, 1973, and in a resolution dated May 3, 1973, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration on June 26, 1973, followed by a supplemental motion dated July 2, 1973. The respondent filed his comment on these motions on July 26, 1973, and the complainant filed a reply on September 29, 1973. The Court thereafter referred the case to Justice Godofredo Ramos of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. On July 22, 1974, the complainant, then residing in Glendale, California, filed a motion to dismiss or withdraw his complaint, duly authenticated by Vice Consul Francisco F. Santos of Los Angeles, California. Justice Ramos recommended dismissal with prejudice, and the case came before the Supreme Court for resolution of that recommendation.

Facts

Anuncio G. Valle filed a complaint against Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City, alleging undue partiality and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the respondent's actuations in a civil case involving Rosario Juico and Anuncio Valle as plaintiffs against World War II Veterans Enterprises, Incorporated, and others. The complaint was initially dismissed for lack of merit, but upon the complainant's motions for reconsideration, the matter was referred to Justice Ramos of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.

While the investigation was pending, the complainant, who had moved to Glendale, California, to accompany his wife for medical treatment, filed a verified motion to dismiss or withdraw his complaint. In that motion he stated that he had been convinced to file the administrative case by certain parties interested in purchasing the Tetoron clothing materials subject to the civil case. He further stated that upon personal and thorough investigation and verification of the facts alleged in the respondent's comments and memoranda and the supporting documents, he found them to be true, rendering unfounded the allegation that the respondent had committed acts of irregularities and favoritism.

The complainant also confirmed that the Reparations Commission had verified that all the Tetoron textiles were ordered released by the respondent only upon full payment or deposit of the sums due, in cashier's checks corresponding to the number of bales released. He concluded that his fear that the textiles would be released without payment was unwarranted, that there was no undue haste in the release, and that there was no irregularity in the substitution of checks. He stated that he believed he had been misled in filing the complaint through misapprehension of the facts, that he was no longer interested in prosecuting the case, and he prayed that the administrative case be dismissed and withdrawn with prejudice.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative complaint against the respondent judge should be dismissed in view of the complainant's verified motion to dismiss or withdraw the same with prejudice.
• Whether or not the grounds stated in the motion to withdraw are tenable, such that the charges against the respondent cannot be substantiated.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the complainant's verified motion to dismiss or withdraw his complaint, which states in part:

That finally, after reviewing the surrounding facts and circumstances of this administrative case, the undersigned complainant is inclined to believe that he was misled in the filing of the complaint through misapprehension of the facts and circumstances and, therefore, is no longer interested in further prosecuting the case and, consequently, hereby moves for the dismissal of this administrative case so as to relieve the respondent Judge from further injury that he might suffer.

This statement bears on the case because it is the complainant's own concession that his charges rested on a misapprehension of facts, which is the basis for the dismissal.

The motion likewise states:

That, however, upon personal and thorough investigation and verification of the facts alleged in the various Comments and Memoranda of the respondent Judge, as well as the supporting documents attached thereto, the undersigned has found them to be true, rendering unfounded the allegation that the respondent Judge committed acts of irregularities and favoritism.

This bears on the case because it removes the factual foundation of the charge of partiality and favoritism.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court granted the withdrawal and dismissed the administrative case with prejudice. It adopted the recommendation of Justice Ramos, who found the grounds for the withdrawal of the complaint to be tenable.

On the second issue, the Court held that the charges could not be substantiated because the complainant desisted from prosecuting the same. The complainant himself had verified that the respondent's comments and memoranda were true, that the allegation of irregularities and favoritism was unfounded, and that the textiles were released only upon full payment or deposit of the sums due. With the complainant no longer interested in prosecuting the case and no evidence to sustain the charges, dismissal was proper.

Doctrine

An administrative complaint against a judge may be dismissed with prejudice where the complainant files a verified motion to withdraw, concedes that he was misled by a misapprehension of facts, and affirms that the allegations of irregularity and favoritism are unfounded. Where the complainant desists from prosecuting the administrative case and the charges cannot be substantiated, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice rather than keep the respondent under the injury of a pending proceeding.

Disposition

The administrative case against respondent Judge Jose C. Campos, Jr. was dismissed with prejudice.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a verified withdrawal by the complainant, coupled with his concession that the charges were unfounded, warrants dismissal of the administrative case with prejudice. Examiners use this case to test the effect of desistance in administrative proceedings against judges and the meaning of a dismissal with prejudice.