SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. P-1846 August 21, 1980

PEDRO PABIA, Complainant, vs. TEOFILO A. CABAÑERO, Respondent.chanrobles virtual law library

AQUINO, J.:

Pedro Pabia, in his verified complaint dated February 8, 1978, imputed negligence and gross misconduct to Teofilo A. Cabañero, 62, a clerk in the municipal court of Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, in connection with the loss of the expediente of Criminal Case No. 7381 of that court, a case of serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence wherein Pabia is one of the complainants.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After Cabanero had submitted his explanation, the case was referred to Executive Judge Fortunato A. Vailoces of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte for investigation, report and recommendation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Judge Vailoces in his report of June 11, 1980 stated that on April 25, 1980, complainant Pabia and his counsel conferred with him and manifested that he (Pabia), after seeing Cabanero (who appeared to be sickly or a "derelict") was overcome with compassion and so he decided to withdraw his complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Pabia on that date executed an affidavit of desistance, He said that, because the lost record had been reconstituted and Cabanero was sickly, he had no more desire to prosecute his administrative complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Judge Vailoces found that not all the papers of the case were missing. The criminal complaint was revived and is now known as Criminal Case No. 7906 filed on November 18, 1978.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Cabanero in his testimony before Judge Vailoces denied any culpability or responsibility with respect to the loss of the missing papers. The Investigator was inclined to give credence to his denial and to respondent's surmise that the municipal judge, before whom the case was pending and who is no longer in the service, was not careful in handling the record of the case and was delaying its disposition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

While the respondent had not been very diligent and efficient in the performance of his duties, nevertheless, Judge Vailoces recommended that the case be dismissed because of respondent's "pitiful state of health".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Due to his poor health, respondent filed an application for optional retirement effective on March 31, 1979. Action on that application was suspended due to the pendency of this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Deputy Court Administrator Leo D. Medialdea concurs in the recommendation of Judge Vailoces.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.