Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. 411-MJ May 22, 1975
ERNESTO R. GONZALES, complainant, MUNICIPAL JUDGE VICENTE DE RODA OF BOGO, CEBU, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:ñé+.£ªwph!1
At the continuation of the hearing of the administrative complaint lodged against the respondent for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence and gross partiality amounting to serious misconduct in office, in relation to the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Case No. 2012 of the Municipal Court of Bogo, Cebu, entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Jesus Y. Yee, Accused", the complainant and his counsel on one hand and the respondent and his counsel on the other hand filed a "Manifestation" with the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, to whom this administrative case was referred for investigation and report, stating among other things, "that the herein respondent acted in good faith", for which reason they were constrained to ask the Honorable Secretary of Justice to concur with them; and that they were withdrawing the administrative complaint.
On January 23, 1973, the Secretary of Justice forwarded the record of the instant Administrative Case to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Sections 6 and 7 of Article X of the New Constitution.
After going over the record of this case, we are constrained to refer this case back to the Investigator, Judge Francisco Burgos, for further investigation. True enough that the complainant, Ernesto R. Gonzales, manifested to the Investigator his lack of interest to prosecute his complaint, However, such circumstance does not constitute sufficient basis for dismissing the complaint as he is a mere witness in the administrative case. It is to be stressed in this connection that the complainant charged the respondent with "gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, gross impartiality amounting to serious misconduct in office" in acquitting the accused in the aforementioned Criminal Case No. 2012 of the Municipal Court of Bogo, Cebu. It therefore becomes imperative to determine whether or not the charges are true.
WHEREFORE, the record of Administrative Matter No. 411-MJ is hereby ordered remanded to the Investigator, Judge Francisco Burgos, of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, for further investigation and report.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio and Aquino, JJ., concur.1äwphï1.ñët
Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda
A.M. No. 411-MJ2 min read
This is an administrative case, Gonzales vs. De Roda, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 22, 197
Quick Answers
- What is Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda about?
- This is an administrative case, Gonzales vs. De Roda, decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on May 22, 197
- Which court decided Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda?
- Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda was decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- When was Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda decided?
- Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda (A.M. No. 411-MJ) was decided on May 22, 1975.
- What is the citation for Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda?
- Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda, A.M. No. 411-MJ, May 22, 1975 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
Case Information
- Case Number
- A.M. No. 411-MJ
- Decision Date
- Court
- Supreme Court of the Philippines
- Jurisdiction
- Philippines
Full Decision Text
Cite This Case
Standard Citation
Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda, A.M. No. 411-MJ, May 22, 1975 (Supreme Court of the Philippines)
APA Style
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1975). Ernesto R. Gonzales vs. Vicente De Roda (A.M. No. 411-MJ). Retrieved from https://legaldex.com/jurisprudence/ernesto-r-gonzales-vs-vicente-de-roda
Related Cases
- Gonzales v. de RodaA.M. No. 411-MJ (Resolution) • May 22, 1975
- Vicente P. Sibulo vs. Ernesto RamirezG.R. No. R-494-P • Sep 17, 1987
- Mondo+¦ido v. Vda. de RodaG.R. No. L-5561 • Jan 26, 1954
- Alagar v. RodaG.R. No. 9058 • Dec 29, 1914
- Vicente Diaz vs. Ruperto KapunanDiaz vs. Kapunan • Dec 8, 1923
- Vicente Pelaez vs. AmyVicente Pelaez • Mar 3, 1923
Need Help Understanding This Case?
Ask our AI assistant to explain the key points, implications, or related cases.
Ask AI About This Case