Scribd
Upload
346 views2 pages

Dolalas

This case involved administrative charges filed by the Ombudsman-Mindanao against a municipal circuit trial court judge and court staff for alleged miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and delay in prosecuting a criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding no evidence that the judge acted with partiality, bad faith, gross negligence, or to unduly advantage any party. The Court also determined that resolving the administrative charge of delay involved assessing whether the judge followed proper Court rules and guidelines, which is an administrative matter. Therefore, the petition was granted and the decision affirmed in favor of the petitioner judge.

Uploaded by

Dyn Magbiro
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
346 views2 pages

Dolalas

This case involved administrative charges filed by the Ombudsman-Mindanao against a municipal circuit trial court judge and court staff for alleged miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, and delay in prosecuting a criminal case. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding no evidence that the judge acted with partiality, bad faith, gross negligence, or to unduly advantage any party. The Court also determined that resolving the administrative charge of delay involved assessing whether the judge followed proper Court rules and guidelines, which is an administrative matter. Therefore, the petition was granted and the decision affirmed in favor of the petitioner judge.

Uploaded by

Dyn Magbiro
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

DOLALAS VS. OMBUDSMAN MINDANAO G. R. No.

118808 December 24, 1996 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order dated January 16, 1995 by petitioners Judge Ana Maria I. Dolalas, Evelyn K. Obido, and Wilberto B. Carriedo Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court, and Clerk II, respectively of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabasalan, Zamboanga del Sur against administrative charges such as miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and for failure to prosecute Criminal Case No. 5881 for unreasonable length of time. Alledgedly, a certain P/Sgt. Salutillo filed a case in connivance with petitioner-judge to discourage the other party from instituting a criminal complaint against said police officers men for abuse of authority and police brutality with physical injuries. Private respondent claimed that there has been no pre-conference, arraignment or pre-trial held or conducted by petitioner-judge and when the case was finally heard, there was a total failure to prosecute said case due to undue delay in the disposition of said criminal case. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner-judge indeed committed miscarriage of justice, dishonesty, gross neglect of duty, unnecessary delay in the administration of justice and for failure to prosecute properly Criminal Case No 5881 as violations under Art. XI, Sections 13 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. HELD: The Supreme Court held in favour of the petitioner-judge. The contention of the petitioner-judge Ombudsman Mindanao that the undue delay in the disposition of the alarms and scandal cases resulted in injury to private respondent was without partiality, no evidence of bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and/or undue advantage to any party, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The SC agrees with the petitioner-judge that the case was purely administrative in nature. Moreover, The SC reiterated that it must be borne in mind that the resolution of the administrative charge of unduly delaying the disposition of the said criminal case involved the determination of whether, in resolving alarms and scandal case, the petitioner-judge acted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Rules of Court and in the Administrative Circulars in pursuance of the ideals embodied in the Code of Judicial Court. Such is clearly administrative. Petition was thereby granted and decision affirmed i favour of petitionerjudge. The case was referred to court for appropriate action.

You might also like