This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-10-05 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| While it is true that an administrative proceeding against a judge is predicated on his continuance in office in the judiciary and that his retirement[6] or resignation will moot a pending administrative case,[7] we are unable to find anything in the records for which respondents can be held liable. Even a cursory reading of the complaint reveals that it pertains to respondents' appreciation of evidence. Thus, it is evident that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy. As a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts may be erroneous, provided he acts in good faith and without malice. In this case, the respondents cannot even be faulted for any error. | |||||