. . . )o investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance! settlement! compromise! restitution! withdrawal of the charges! or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.
n ;ais v. Tugaoen!3"94 the Court frowned upon the complainants affidavit of desistance! hence! in spite of it! proceeded with the complaint against the erring udge. n Reyes,Domingo v. 0orales!3"#4 we epostulated that5 The withdrawal of a complaint for lac1 of interest of a complainant does not necessarily warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint 'Dagsa,an v. Conag! *#/ SCRA "* 3"##94(. The Court cannot be bound by the unilateral decision of a complainant to desist from prosecuting a case involving the discipline of parties subect to its administrative supervision 'Namora v. Gumamoy! *9 SCRA $9+ 3"##:4(. The need to maintain the faith and confidence of our people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities demands that proceedings in administrative cases against public officers and employees should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants who are! in a real sense! only witnesses 'Sy v. Academia! "#9 SCRA +/$ 3"##"4(. The later case of -ecutive Gudge <acifico S. ;ulado v. Domingo Tiu! Gr. 'A.0. )o. <,#%,"*""! " 0arch *///! pp. :,$! *# SCRA /9(! more pointedly stated that M 6hile complainant in this case may have forgiven respondent! this Court! charged as it is with enforcing discipline in the udiciary! cannot simply close its eyes to respondents acts of etreme intransigence. 6ithdrawal of the complaint will not free respondent from his administrative liability '-streller v. 0anatad! Gr.! *%9 SCRA %/9 3"##+4(! particularly because administrative proceedings are imbued with public interest! public office being a public trust 'Iacho v. ?uentes! Gr.! *#" SCRA :+: 3"##94(. The need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government! its agencies and its instrumentalities re=uires that proceedings in administrative cases should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants who are! in a real sense! only witnesses therein '-streller v. 0anatad! supraF Iacho v. ?uentes! supra(. The court cannot be bound by the unilateral act of a complainant in a matter that involves its disciplinary authority over all employees of the udiciaryF otherwise! our disciplinary power may be put to naught 'Sandoval v. 0analo! *%/ SCRA %"" 3"##%4(. ?inally! in ;olivar v. Simbol!3*/4 the Court! citing n re Davies!3*"4 ruled that the discipline of lawyers cannot be cut short by a compromise or withdrawal of charges5 t is contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that this settlement operated as an absolution and remission of his offense. This view of the case ignores the fact that the eercise of the power is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties! but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. @e had acted in clear disregard of his duty as an attorney at the bar! and without 7good fidelity8 to his client.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 5 pages?
You've reached the end of this preview.
- Fall '18
- Jane Blair
- Supreme Court of the United States, Lawyer