AM 852; (May, 1975) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 852-MJ May 30, 1975
FELISBERTO ALEGRE, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE RHODIE A. NIDEA of Sipocot, Camarines Sur, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Felisberto Alegre filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Rhodie A. Nidea, accusing him of partiality and favoritism. The complaint was referred for investigation to then Executive Judge Ulpiano Sarmiento of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. The Department of Justice, which then exercised administrative supervision over inferior courts, directed the inquiry to ascertain the truth of the allegations regarding judicial bias.
Judge Sarmiento scheduled the investigation. However, on the day set for the hearing, complainant Alegre and his counsel failed to appear. Instead, they filed a motion to dismiss the administrative case. Attached to the motion was an affidavit from Alegre stating that his complaint arose from a simple misunderstanding that had already been resolved. Notably, the complainant had previously requested two postponements of the investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint for partiality and favoritism against respondent Judge should be dismissed based on the complainant’s desistance and failure to prosecute.
RULING
Yes, the administrative complaint is dismissed. The Supreme Court, through Justice Fernando, upheld the dismissal based on the complainant’s clear abandonment of his charges. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that the burden of proving administrative allegations lies with the complainant. Here, the complainant not only failed to appear at the investigation to substantiate his serious accusations but also formally withdrew his complaint via a sworn affidavit of desistance. In that affidavit, he explicitly attributed the filing of the case to a mere misunderstanding that was already settled.
The Court found the recommendation of the Judicial Consultant, who reviewed the case after its transfer to the Supreme Court under the 1973 Constitution, to be proper. The dismissal is justified by the complainant’s active repudiation of his own complaint and his failure to cooperate in the proceedings he initiated. Without the complainant’s evidence and participation, the charges cannot be sustained. The Court will not waste its time and resources on an unsubstantiated case that the complainant himself no longer wishes to pursue. The resolution serves to prevent the misuse of administrative proceedings by dissatisfied litigants and upholds the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge’s duties absent clear proof to the contrary.