Pesole vs. Rodriguez

Charges of misconduct against judges must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise the complaint must be dismissed. Withdrawal by the complainant without substantiation, even coupled with documentary proof by respondent negating the charge, compels dismissal and exoneration.

Respondent Lucio L. Rodriguez served as Municipal Judge of Tabogon, Cebu, acting in that capacity as ex-officio notary public. Complainant Rogelio Pesole was a resident of Cebu City. Pedro Apa, whose affidavit and falsification case figured in the charge, was described as a cultivator of a piece of land belonging to respondent.

Complainant Rogelio Pesole of Cebu City filed a verified complaint dated May 16, 1974 against Lucio L. Rodriguez, Municipal Judge of Tabogon, Cebu. The charge was misconduct and/or misbehavior for allegedly acting as counsel for one Pedro Apa in the preliminary investigation for falsification before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, and for notarizing Apa's documents which became the basis of the falsification charge.

Required to comment, respondent vehemently denied the charge. He explained that he notarized Apa's affidavit in his capacity as ex-officio notary public and that during the preliminary investigation, Apa being a cultivator of land belonging to him, he acted not as counsel but as moderator or amicus curiae with the implied permission of the Fiscal. Respondent thereafter filed no less than four petitions praying for formal investigation of the complaint or its dismissal as malicious or groundless.

Pending investigation, the President accepted respondent's courtesy resignation. The case was nonetheless referred to Executive Judge Mariano A. Zosa of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City for investigation, report and recommendation. Hearings set for September 20, 21, and 22 were reset to October 6, 8, and 11, 1976 because complainant was not duly notified. Meanwhile, by letter dated September 30, 1976, Pesole formally withdrew his complaint for lack of interest and informed the court he would no longer appear to substantiate it.

Notwithstanding the withdrawal, respondent insisted on presenting evidence, which was received on October 6, 1976. His proofs consisted of his letter dated August 13, 1974 to the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu requesting clarification whether he appeared as counsel for Pedro Apa (Exhibit 1) with the 1st Indorsement dated August 19, 1974 of Provincial Fiscal Santiago N. Medina stating that per record there was no such appearance (Exhibit 1-A); certification of the stenographer that nobody entered appearance as counsel for Apa (Exhibit 2); transcript of stenographic notes showing respondent did not enter appearance as counsel (Exhibit 5); and certification of Judge Eusebio Arnoco, Acting Municipal Judge of Tabogon, that Apa's affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before respondent in his capacity as Municipal Judge and ex-officio notary public. The Investigating Judge found the charges unsubstantiated and recommended dismissal and exoneration.

• Misconduct as Counsel and Notary: Complainant charged that respondent acted as counsel for Pedro Apa in the preliminary investigation for falsification before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu and notarized Apa's documents which became the basis of the falsification charge.
• Withdrawal for Lack of Interest: Complainant, by letter dated September 30, 1976, formally withdrew the complaint on the ground of lack of interest and stated he would no longer appear in the scheduled investigation to substantiate it.

• Denial – Ex-Officio Notarization: Respondent vehemently denied the charges, explaining that he notarized the affidavit of Pedro Apa in his capacity as ex-officio notary public.
• Denial – Moderator Not Counsel: Respondent maintained that during the preliminary investigation against Apa, a cultivator of his land, he acted not as counsel but as moderator or amicus curiae with the implied permission of the Fiscal.
• Vindication Despite Withdrawal and Resignation: Respondent insisted on presenting evidence to prove falsity of the charges notwithstanding complainant's withdrawal, and sought formal investigation or dismissal of the complaint as malicious or groundless even after acceptance of his courtesy resignation.

• Substantiation of Misconduct: Whether respondent is guilty of misconduct and/or misbehavior for allegedly acting as counsel for Pedro Apa and notarizing Apa's documents.
• Effect of Withdrawal and Cessation in Office: Whether withdrawal of the complaint for lack of interest and acceptance of respondent's courtesy resignation preclude determination of innocence or guilt.

• Substantiation of Misconduct: No. The charges were not substantiated, complainant having presented no evidence while respondent's documentary proofs negated appearance as counsel and showed notarization as ex-officio notary public.
• Effect of Withdrawal and Cessation in Office: No. Withdrawal does not bar reception of respondent's evidence and resolution on the merits, and cessation in office does not divest jurisdiction to pronounce innocence or guilt.

• Substantiation of Misconduct: Charges of misconduct against judges must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise dismissal follows. Here complainant failed to present any evidence and withdrew for lack of interest, while respondent proved through the Provincial Fiscal's indorsement, stenographer's certification, transcript of notes, and Acting Municipal Judge's certification that no appearance as counsel was entered and notarization was in an ex-officio capacity. The Investigating Judge's finding of non-substantiation was thus well-taken, consistent with dismissal where complainants withdraw and fail to substantiate.
• Effect of Withdrawal and Cessation in Office: Jurisdiction acquired at filing is not lost by the respondent's cessation in office during pendency; authority is retained either to pronounce innocence or declare guilt, since a contrary rule would breed injustice. Acceptance of respondent's courtesy resignation therefore did not render the case moot, and formal withdrawal did not prevent reception of respondent's evidence and approval of the recommendation for dismissal and exoneration.

• Clear and Convincing Evidence for Judicial Misconduct — Charges of misconduct against judges must be established by clear and convincing evidence; absent such proof, the complaint must be dismissed. Applied to dismiss the complaint where complainant adduced nothing and respondent affirmatively disproved appearance as counsel.
• Retained Jurisdiction Despite Resignation or Retirement — Resignation or retirement during pendency does not automatically render an administrative case moot; jurisdiction at filing persists to declare the official innocent or guilty, each case resolved in its context. Applied to resolve the merits and exonerate respondent despite acceptance of his courtesy resignation by the President.
• Effect of Complainant's Withdrawal — Withdrawal for lack of interest or failure to adduce evidence leaves charges unsubstantiated and warrants dismissal. Applied where complainant withdrew in writing and declined to appear, paralleling dismissals for non-substantiation.

• "The rule is that charges of misconduct against judges should be proven by clear and convincing evidence, otherwise they should be dismissed." — States the controlling standard of proof for administrative charges against judges and the consequence of failure to meet it.
• "... (T)he jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. ... If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserve to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation." — Defines retained administrative jurisdiction after cessation in office and the dual rationale of vindication if innocent and censure if guilty.

• Valle vs. Campos, Jr., Administrative Case No. 282-J, August 15, 1974, 58 SCRA 334 — Followed as authority for dismissing an administrative complaint where complainant manifested in writing withdrawal for lack of interest, the charges being unsubstantiated.
• Pawaki vs. Malik, Administrative No. 6-MJ, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 130 — Followed as authority for dismissing where complainant appeared without counsel and witnesses and withdrew for lack of evidence to support the charges.
• Perez vs. Abiera, Administrative Matter No. 223-J, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302, 306-307 — Followed as authority that resignation or retirement does not as a hard and fast rule render an administrative case moot, jurisdiction being retained to declare innocence or guilt.

Fernando, Chairman, Barredo, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concurred. Santos, J., was on leave. No separate concurring opinion with additional reasoning appears in the text.