2. DOLALAS (2)

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.