Case Digest (A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC)
Facts:
Re: Letter-Complaint of Concerned Citizens Against Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera, Atty. Rolando Faller, and Atty. Santiago Varela, A.M. No. 07-11-13-SC, June 30, 2008, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.On August 26, 2007 an unverified letter-complaint from a group calling themselves “Concerned Citizens” was received by the Office of the Chief Justice and forwarded to the Court; the letter stated that on August 6, 2007 the same group had filed a complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action (and annexes) purportedly through the OCJ against former Government Corporate Counsel (now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera) and other OGCC lawyers, and that they had also filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Devanadera and attorneys Rolando Faller and Santiago Varela. The allegations asserted that the lawyers engaged in partisan political activity during the May 14, 2007 elections and committed violations including malversation (Art. 217, RPC), violations of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the service; the August 26 letter attached a copy of the August 6 submission and photocopied annexes.
By Resolution of November 20, 2007 the Court required Solicitor General Devanadera, GCC Alberto C. Agra, and Attys. Faller and Varela to comment within ten days. The respondents filed separate comments dated December 17 and 26, 2007, moving for dismissal on several grounds: the complaint was anonymous and unverified contrary to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court (which requires a verified complaint supported by affidavits or documents), the attached papers were photocopies and the respondents were not served with annexes (implicating due process), and the Ombudsman complaint (if filed) made the disbarment complaint premature. In addition, Solicitor General Devanadera invoked Republic Act No. 9417 and contended that, as an official of cabinet rank, Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code prohibiting partisan political activity did not apply to her, citing “Santos v. Yatco.”
The Court reviewed the pleadings and authorities (including Fernandez v. Atty. Novero, Jr. and Anonymous v. Geverola), considered that anonymous complaints may sometimes be entertained but must be verifiable, and found the August 26 allegations vague, the annexes mere photocopies, and the complainants unidentifie...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Must an anonymous and unverified letter-complaint be dismissed for failing to comply with Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court?
- Were the allegations that Solicitor General Devanadera and the other lawyers engaged in partisan political activity and other misconduct sufficiently specific and supported to merit disciplinary proceedings?
- Does Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code apply to the Solicitor General by reason of her alleged ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)