Accredited Local Publishers of the Weekly Ilocandia Inquirer

v. Del Rosario
A.M. No. P-14-3213 (Notice), January 17, 2017

Samuel Del Rosario filed a motion for reconsideration for his

dismissal from service as Court Personnel in a Decision dated 12 July
2016. He avers that he was a victim of false and wrong
recommendation by Judge Rose Mary M. Alim as he did not know that
the complainants in this case had already filed their affidavits of
desistance so he could have filed a motion for dismissal. His main
contention is the withdrawal of the complaint against him by different
publishers.

As noted by the Court, complainant's change of heart in deciding not

to pursue the case against respondent is of no moment as it has no
controlling significance in administrative case. Administrative actions
cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may,
for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable. Neither can
the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a
matter relating to its disciplinary power. Desistance cannot divest the
Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the complaint
against the respondent. To be sure, public interest is at stake in the
conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary.

This is so because the issue in administrative cases is not whether

the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent but,
rather, whether the employee against whom the complaint is filed
has breached the norms and standards of service in the judiciary. As
such, this Court, having disciplinary authority over employees of the
lower courts, has the power and duty to pursue this administrative
matter regardless of complainant's desistance.
Thus, the Court finds no justifiable reason to modify or reverse the
dismissal from service.

https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/62467?s_params=MYVTBHAa
gyibrbbsob4Q