Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT -- JUDGE SILVERIO S. TAYAO v. JUDGE SILVERIO S. TAYAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM NO. RTJ-02-1713 2005-10-25	ROMULO D. JABON v. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the charges for incompetence, ignorance of the law and dishonesty, complainants utterly failed to present substantial proof to negate the presumptions of good faith and the regularity in the performance of judicial functions. It is true that "judges may be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law when it is shown that -- motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption -- they ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence."[46] The Court has thoroughly elucidated in Re: Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC, Br. 143, Makati[47] that:" By its nature, judicial discretion involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the judge. The judge must be allowed a reasonable latitude for the operation of his own individual view of the case, his appreciation of the facts, and his understanding of the applicable law on the matter. '"
	AM No. RTJ-02-1742 2003-09-11	AVELINA MADULA v. JUDGE RUTH CRUZ SANTOS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, even assuming arguendo that respondent judge may have erred at all, the lapse would be an error of judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence of proof that the act complained of constitutes bad faith, malice, corrupt practice,[14] or gross ignorance of the law. It is settled that judges can not be held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith.[15]
	AM No. MTJ-03-1506 2003-08-28	PABLO B. MABINI v. JUDGE LORINDA B. TOLEDO-MUPAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This yardstick, however, can hardly apply to respondent Judge since the record is bereft of any persuasive showing of a wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on her part. Assuming for the nonce that respondent judge may have erred at all, the lapse would be an error of judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment, in the absence of showing of any bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose.[6] Indeed, it is settled that judges can not be held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith.[7]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1755 2003-07-03	JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE AMALIA F. DY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that respondent judge erred, the lapse would be an error of judgment. A judge may not be administratively charged for errors of judgment, in the absence of showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose.[18] It is well-settled that judges can not be held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith.[19] If a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court and not with the Office of the Court Administrator.[20]