FELICIANA DAGSA-AN, COMPLAINANT, VS. RODOLFO SEL CONAG, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

Dagsa-an versus Conag

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Feliciana Dagsa-an against Rodolfo Sel Conag, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte. The complainant charged the respondent with failure to pay a debt of 17,400 pesos, which she said he obtained from her and used to buy pieces of jewelry and other personal accessories. The case matters for two reasons. First, it teaches what happens to an administrative complaint when the complainant withdraws it and desists from pursuing it. Second, it reminds every member of the judiciary that even a respondent who wins can be admonished for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court.

Procedural History

The complaint began as an affidavit complaint dated 27 January 1996, filed directly with the Supreme Court. In its resolution of 10 February 1997, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Buenaventura Vilbar of the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte, for investigation, report, and recommendation. Because Judge Vilbar was undergoing medical treatment and was physically unfit, the Court reassigned the case in its resolution of 23 June 1997 to Executive Judge Fortunito Mandrona of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City. In his compliance dated 4 September 1997, Judge Mandrona recommended dismissal because the complainant had formally withdrawn her complaint and manifested under oath that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. In its memorandum dated 2 January 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator, through Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo Abesamis, likewise recommended dismissal, observing that the complaint would not prosper without the participation of the complainant. The case was thus an original administrative action resolved by the Supreme Court itself.

Facts

Feliciana Dagsa-an accused Rodolfo Sel Conag, a married man with whom she had an illicit relationship, of failing to pay a debt of 17,400 pesos. She alleged that he took advantage of her moments of weakness and lack of education in obtaining the loan, which he used to purchase pieces of jewelry and other personal accessories.

The respondent vehemently denied the accusation. He claimed that the administrative action was merely an offshoot of his own complaint against Prosecutor Nemesio Buot, Junior, who, according to him, instigated the case.

During the investigation, the complainant formally withdrew her complaint and manifested under oath that she was no longer interested in pursuing it. The investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator both recommended dismissal. The Court, however, noticed something else in the record: in defending himself, the respondent had evidently attempted, using the Court's letterhead, to improperly obtain information about the complainant that could sully her character and reputation.

Issues

• Whether or not the withdrawal of the complaint and the desistance of the complainant warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for the charge of failure to pay his debt.
• Whether or not the respondent should be sanctioned for his attempt to obtain information against the complainant using the Court's letterhead.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision. It applies the Court's supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary, as expressed in its own ruling in Vasquez versus Malvar:

To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip this Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring member of the Judiciary.

This principle bears on the case because it explains why the complainant's desistance does not automatically end an administrative case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the withdrawal of a complaint or the desistance of a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint. It categorically expressed that to condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary. The Court added, however, that in instances where an administrative case cannot proceed without the active cooperation of the complainant, it may find itself with hardly any alternative but to dismiss the complaint. According to the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator, that is what unfortunately occurred in this instance.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of evidence.

On the third issue, the Court held that it could not write finis to the matter without observing that the respondent had evidently attempted, using the Court's letterhead, to improperly obtain information about the complainant that could sully her character and reputation. For this conduct unbecoming of an officer of a court of justice, the respondent deserved admonition.

Doctrine

First, the withdrawal of a complaint or the desistance of a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint, because to condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant is to strip the Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary. Second, where an administrative case cannot proceed without the active cooperation of the complainant, the Court may have no alternative but to dismiss the complaint. Third, a member of the judiciary must be circumspect in his actuation; using the Court's letterhead to improperly obtain information that could sully the character and reputation of a complainant is conduct unbecoming an officer of a court of justice and merits admonition.

Disposition

The administrative complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence, but respondent Rodolfo Sel Conag was admonished for not having been more circumspect in his actuation than heretofore shown.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that desistance does not automatically dismiss an administrative case, but the Court may dismiss when it cannot proceed without the complainant's active cooperation. Examiners like to use this case to test the Court's supervisory power over erring judicial officers and the sanction of admonition for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court.