Title
Alegre vs. Nidea
Case
A.M. No. 852-MJ
Decision Date
May 30, 1975
An administrative complaint against Judge Rhodie A. Nidea for partiality and favoritism was dismissed due to the complainant's failure to substantiate allegations and subsequent desistance, resolving the matter as a misunderstanding.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 852-MJ)

Facts:

  1. Complaint Filed: Felisberto Alegre filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, alleging partiality and favoritism.
  2. Respondent's Defense: Judge Nidea denied the allegations, stating that his conduct did not manifest partiality or favoritism.
  3. Investigation by Executive Judge: The Department of Justice referred the matter to Executive Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to investigate the allegations of bias, leniency, undue severity, and strictness.
  4. Failure to Appear: During the scheduled investigation on November 27, 1969, complainant Alegre and his lawyer failed to appear. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss the case, attaching an affidavit (Annex A) stating that the complaint arose from a misunderstanding that had already been resolved.
  5. Postponements: The case had been postponed twice at the request of the complainant.
  6. Recommendation for Dismissal: Judge Sarmiento recommended dismissing the case due to the complainant's lack of cooperation and the filing of the motion to dismiss.
  7. Transfer to Supreme Court: The case was transferred to the Supreme Court under the new Constitution, which granted the Court supervisory authority over inferior courts.
  8. Judicial Consultant's Memorandum: The Office of the Judicial Consultant reviewed the case and recommended dismissal, citing the complainant's failure to substantiate the charges and his affidavit of desistance.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Lack of Substantiation: The complainant failed to appear during the investigation to substantiate his allegations, which is crucial for the success of an administrative complaint.
  2. Affidavit of Desistance: The complainant filed an affidavit stating that the complaint was based on a misunderstanding that had already been resolved, effectively withdrawing the charges.
  3. Judicial Discretion: The Court upheld the recommendation of the Judicial Consultant and the investigating judge, emphasizing that the dismissal was proper given the complainant's lack of cooperation and desistance.
  4. Supervisory Authority: The Supreme Court exercised its constitutional authority to supervise inferior courts, ensuring that administrative complaints are resolved fairly and justly.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.