Case Digest: RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. FALLER, AND ATTY. VARELA.

RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT OF CONCERNED CITIZENS AGAINST SOLICITOR GENERAL AGNES VST. DEVANADERA, ATTY. ROLANDO FALLER,
AND ATTY. SANTIAGO VARELA.

556 SCRA 522 (2008)

An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author and must be substantiated and established by other competent evidence.

The Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) received on September 5, 2007 an unverified letter-complaint dated August 26, 2007 written by “Concerned Citizens” and addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. The letter contained a complaint for disbarment/disciplinary action against former Government Corporate Counsel (GCC), now Solicitor General Agnes Vst. Devanadera and Alberto C. Agra and other lawyers of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), for “engaging directly or indirectly in partisan political activities” during the May 14, 2007 national and local elections, and for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Solicitor General et al. filed their separate comments, praying for the outright dismissal of the complaint for being anonymous and contrary to the intent of Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court which provides.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an anonymous complaint can be dismissed outrightly

HELD :

The Court will not thus shirk from its responsibility to mete out proper disciplinary punishment to lawyers who are shown to have failed to live up to their sworn duties; but neither will it hesitate to extend its protective arm to those the accusation against whom is not indubitably proven. For a lawyer’s good name is, in the ultimate analysis, his most important possession.

An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easy of verification and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence.

A reading of the letter-complaint shows that the allegations are vague. And the attachments thereto are mere photocopies, not to mention the plaint of the Solicitor General et al. that they were not furnished copies of the annexes to the August 6, 2007 complaint. The Court is thus inclined to, as it does, dismiss the complaint.