Facts:

The case involves Felisberto Alegre as the complainant and Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea of Sipocot, Camarines Sur as the respondent. The complaint was filed on May 30, 1975, alleging partiality and favoritism by Judge Nidea. Alegre claimed that the judge's actions were biased against him, which he believed affected the outcome of his case. In response to the complaint, Judge Nidea denied any allegations of partiality or favoritism. The Department of Justice, which had administrative oversight over inferior courts at the time, referred the matter to Executive Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for an inquiry into the allegations. During the investigation scheduled for November 27, 1969, both Alegre and his lawyer failed to appear, while Judge Nidea was present. The records indicated that Alegre had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, stating that the issue arose from a misunderstanding that had since been resolved. The District...

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.

Issue:

The central issues in the case were:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)