FACTS:
The case stems from an ejectment case filed by Petitioner Boiser against one Julleza, which was decided in favor of Boiser by the MTC. When the case reached the RTC on appeal by Julleza, Julleza filed a motion to release bond which was granted by Respondent Judge. Boiser then filed the instant administrative case against Respondent Judge for ignorance of the law, alleging that the motion did not state that he was furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving him of his right to due process.
After it was found out by Boiser that Respondent Judge held in his favor in the decision of his ejectment case, Boiser withdrew his administrative complaint. The administrative complaint was still placed under investigation with the CA which held to dismiss the case; the case was raised to the Supreme Court for instant review.
The case stems from an ejectment case filed by Petitioner Boiser against one Julleza, which was decided in favor of Boiser by the MTC. When the case reached the RTC on appeal by Julleza, Julleza filed a motion to release bond which was granted by Respondent Judge. Boiser then filed the instant administrative case against Respondent Judge for ignorance of the law, alleging that the motion did not state that he was furnished a copy of the motion thereby depriving him of his right to due process.
After it was found out by Boiser that Respondent Judge held in his favor in the decision of his ejectment case, Boiser withdrew his administrative complaint. The administrative complaint was still placed under investigation with the CA which held to dismiss the case; the case was raised to the Supreme Court for instant review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the administrative case is moot, the petitioner having withdrawn
the case
RULING:
No, mere desistance on the part of the complainant does not warrant the
dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench
The
withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip
it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to
discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring
respondent. Even the retirement of respondent does not oust the Court of its
jurisdiction over an administrative case by the mere fact that the respondent
public official ceases to hold office during the pendency of respondent’s case.
On
deciding the main issue, the Court held that the Motion to Release Bond was
defective, not having a proper notice of hearing. Not to mention the fact that
the date and time of the hearing were not specified, and that neither
complainant nor his counsel was furnished a copy thereof. These were never controverted
by respondent judge. A motion without notice of hearing is pro forma, a mere
scrap of paper. It presents no question which the court could decide. The court
has no reason to consider it and the clerk has no right to receive it.
No comments:
Post a Comment