Case Digest (G.R. No. 237159)
Facts:
The case involves Felisberto Alegre as the complainant against Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, who is the respondent. The administrative complaint arose from allegations made by Alegre against Judge Nidea, asserting partiality and favoritism in the latter’s conduct. The complaint was filed and then forwarded to the Executive Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for investigation as the Department of Justice had administrative oversight over inferior courts at that time. An investigation was scheduled; however, on November 27, 1969, neither Alegre nor his attorney appeared, while Judge Nidea was present. During this session, a motion to dismiss was filed by Alegre indicating that the administrative complaint stemmed from a misunderstanding that had since been resolved. It was noted that this case had been postponedCase Digest (G.R. No. 237159)
Facts:
In this case, Felisberto Alegre filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, alleging partiality and favoritism. The complaint appeared to stem from the disgruntlement of a losing party dissatisfied with the Judge’s conduct. When summoned for an investigation by the then District Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento (under the supervision of the Department of Justice over inferior courts), both the complainant and his lawyer failed to appear. Instead, at the scheduled investigation, the complainant submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint accompanied by an affidavit in which he admitted that the complaint arose merely from a misunderstanding that had been subsequently resolved. Notably, the investigation had been postponed twice at the complainant’s request prior to his eventual failure to appear, emphasizing his lack of persistence in pursuing the allegations.Issues:
The central issues in the case were:- Whether the administrative complaint for partiality and favoritism should proceed when the complainant, who initiated the case, subsequently demonstrated a lack of interest by not appearing during the investigation.
- Whether the filing of a motion to dismiss, supported by an affidavit that admitted the complaint was based on a misunderstanding, sufficed to nullify the administrative charge against the judge.
- What role the active participation of the complainant plays in ensuring that administrative charges, particularly against judicial officers, are properly substantiated and processed.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)