This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court stresses that the dismissal or withdrawal of charges and the desistance of witnesses does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case. Affidavits of desistance filed by complainants are looked upon with disfavor; even the withdrawal of the complaint does not have the legal effect of exonerating the respondent from any administrative disciplinary action. It does not operate to divest this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint, as our disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on, or frustrated by, private arrangements between parties; otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, would be undermined.[7] However, in such cases, the charge against the respondent judge should still be proven by substantial evidence, which in this case was not established. Thus, we agree with the recommendation of both the Executive Judge and the OCA that the charges of partiality and gross ignorance of the law should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A judge has the avowed duty to promote public confidence in the judiciary. Judge Mauricio's actions were not merely improper, they could bring the judiciary into a state of grave disrepute and widespread distrust.[17] | |||||