ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.C. No. 5875.� July 27, 2005]

MENDOZA vs. AGUSTIN

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 27 2005.

A.C. No. 5875 (Mary Ellen G. Mendoza vs. Atty. Servillano T. Agustin.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Bar Confidant, to wit:

In a complaint, dated 9 October 2002 (Rollo, p. 1), complainant MARY ELLEN G. MENDOZA charges respondent ATTY. SERVILLANO T. AGUSTIN with willful neglect to perform his obligation to give support to their common law child as provided for under Title III of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Complainant narrates that because of the affection and kindness shown by the respondent to her, she entrusted her love to him resulting in their cohabitation as husband and wife. During their cohabitation they begot a child in the name of Claudine, who was born on 26 January 1999 (Birth Certificate, Annex "A" to the complaint, Rollo, p. 4). Complainant learned later on, however, that the respondent is married. Acceding to the plea of the respondent's legal wife, complainant decided to leave the respondent.� Complainant asked respondent to give support for Claudine. Respondent allegedly agreed to support the child on the condition that they will continue with their relationship. Complainant refused the offer Complainant prays that herein respondent be directed to give monthly support of P15,000.00 for Claudine and P5,000.00 for the monthly house rental.

In his comment, dated 28 March 2003, respondent without admitting the truth, veracity and validity of the complaint, prays that the same be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the same being one for support cognizable by the Regional Trial Court especially designated as a family court.

Except for the facts that Claudine is his daughter and he is married, respondent vehemently denies all the allegations contained in the complaint for being false. Respondent alleges that the complainant, unreasonably demanded money from him in an amount beyond his means and capability. Unless the amount demanded is given to the complainant, he cannot see and visit his daughter Claudine.

After a punctilious study of the records of this case, the instant administrative complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the cause of action being an ordinary civil action for support cognizable by a competent court.

Complainant in this case is actually asking for the monthly support for their common child Claudine and monthly rental of house from the respondent being the putative father of her daughter.

The cause of action of herein complainant is an ordinary civil action for support as provided for under Art. 194 of the Family Code in conjunction with Art. 290 of the New Civil Code.

The issue raised in the instant complaint involves only support of the putative father, which may properly be determined through adversarial proceedings before a competent court.

The Supreme Court, in the case of State Prosecutor vs. Muro, 250 SCRA 111, emphasized that:

Let it be emphasized that the policy of the Court as regards administrative cases is to dismiss the charge/s if the remedy is judicial in nature.

The instant administrative case should be dismissed considering the remedy available to herein complainant is a matter judicial in nature.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended that the instant administrative case be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction the same being judicial in nature.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Atty. Servillano T. Agustin is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE