Scribd
Upload
42 views1 page

Boiser vs. Aguirre

Petitioner Alfredo Boiser filed an administrative case against Respondent Judge Aguirre for allegedly ignoring the law in granting a motion without proper notice to Boiser. Boiser later withdrew the administrative complaint after learning the judge ruled in his favor in a related case. The Court held that withdrawing the complaint did not moot the administrative case, as the Court still has jurisdiction to investigate potential misconduct. The Court also found the motion granted by Respondent Judge was defective as it lacked proper notice of hearing to Boiser.

Uploaded by

kristinevillanueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views1 page

Boiser vs. Aguirre

Petitioner Alfredo Boiser filed an administrative case against Respondent Judge Aguirre for allegedly ignoring the law in granting a motion without proper notice to Boiser. Boiser later withdrew the administrative complaint after learning the judge ruled in his favor in a related case. The Court held that withdrawing the complaint did not moot the administrative case, as the Court still has jurisdiction to investigate potential misconduct. The Court also found the motion granted by Respondent Judge was defective as it lacked proper notice of hearing to Boiser.

Uploaded by

kristinevillanueva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CIVPRO [RULE 15 MOTIONS]

19 - Boiser v. Aguirre

Petitioner: Alfredo Boiser


Respondent: Judge Aguirre, RTC Negros

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.

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.

You might also like