A.C. No. 11533 - Spouses Chua vs. Tan-Sollano

The charges alleged against the respondents included grave abuse of discretion, ignorance of the law, abuse of power or authority, and gross misconduct.

On October 12, 2015, the Spouses Chua filed a Complaint for Perjury and False Testimony before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Manila, docketed as XV-07-INV-15J-05513.
The complaint was principally against:

The allegation involved a discrepancy regarding the issuance of 11 post-dated checks, with the complainants contending that the checks had actually been issued earlier than testified by Talusan.

Talusan intentionally committed perjury by stating that the checks were issued on July 11, 2009, while they were actually issued on February 23, 2009.
The differing dates were crucial since the post-dated checks were meant to replace previously bounced checks.

In connection with the complaint, other parties including Atty. Tasarra and members of the Board of Directors of Chain Glass Enterprises, Inc. (CGEI) were impleaded.
On December 28, 2015, the respondents recommended dismissal of the underlying complaint for lack of probable cause.
A Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently filed by the Spouses Chua but was denied on August 9, 2016, after reaffirmation of the original resolution dismissing the case.

The Spouses Chua contended that the dismissal of the criminal case (docketed as XV-07-INV-15J-05513) was not only improper but highly irregular.
They argued that the prosecution had presented an “airtight case/evidence” against those involved.
The administrative complaint was thus seen as a retaliatory measure aimed at prosecutorial officers who had a role in the dismissal of the said criminal case.

Whether the Spouses Chua were able to present clear, preponderant, and substantial evidence showing that the respondents committed infractions justifying administrative sanctions.
Whether the administrative complaint was the appropriate remedy given that the underlying criminal case (XV-07-INV-15J-05513) was still pending and active.
Whether the administrative process was misappropriated for a retaliatory purpose instead of being a bona fide measure to address misconduct in the legal process.