A.C. No. 6296 - Magno vs. Velasco-Jacoba

On February 8, 1971, the Secretary of Justice and Chief State Prosecutor filed a petition before the Court accusing District Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz of two counts:

Gross inefficiency in office and violation of laws, rules, and regulations.
Serious misconduct, incompetence, falsification, and willful violation of the Constitution, laws, rules, and regulations.

The petition was detailed in a 38-page document, thoroughly describing the specific acts constituting the charges.
Respondent submitted his answer on March 22, 1971, in a 59-page document accompanied by annexes.
The case was then referred to an Investigator to compile a report and recommendation.

An initial extension of 10 days from December 2, 1971 (filed on December 7, 1971).
A subsequent urgent extension of 20 days from December 24, 1971.

No further motion to dismiss was subsequently filed, as indicated by the case records.

On October 6, 1972, the President of the Philippines accepted the resignation of Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz.
The acceptance was carried out without prejudice to any rights the respondent may have had under the pertinent retirement laws.
In his letter of resignation acceptance, the President:

Expressed appreciation for Judge Ruiz’s "cooperation in the effort to fashion a new society."
Acknowledged his service rendered to the public in the Court of First Instance.
Hoped that he would continue to support the country’s progress.

On November 7, 1972, the Investigator sought instructions from the Court regarding whether to dismiss the administrative case.
The recommendation was to consider dismissal on grounds that the case had become moot and academic following the acceptance of the resignation.

Typically, a resignation during the pendency of an administrative case does not automatically lead to its dismissal.
The objective of the administrative proceedings is not only the removal from office but also the imposition of penalties such as forfeiture of retirement gratuity and other privileges.
Removal power is vested in the President, who acts upon the Court’s report and recommendation following the conclusion of the administrative hearing.

Whether the resignation of Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz, accepted by the President, sufficiently nullifies the need to continue the administrative investigation on the charges presented.
Whether the administrative proceedings, which seek not only removal from office but also punitive measures including forfeiture of benefits, can be dismissed as moot given the resignation.
The extent to which the President’s manner and content of the acceptance of resignation (including expressions of appreciation and encouragement) influence or obviate the need for further investigation or disciplinary proceedings.