Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-11-2283 2011-11-16	ATTY. LETICIA E. ALAL v. JUDGE SOLIVER C. PERAS MENDOZA, J.
In order to find merit in complainant's allegations, a review on the merits of the respondent Judges' orders would be imperative. This task, however, is not the proper subject of an administrative case but for a court of justice to determine in an appropriate case. The law provides for ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities committed by the RTC in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature include a motion for reconsideration, a motion for new trial, and an appeal. The extraordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character are the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, or a petition for change of venue, as the case may be.[28]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2285 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3472-RTJ 2011-07-27	MAYOR MACARIO T. HUMOL v. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS MENDOZA, J.
Time and again, this Court has ruled that the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is not an alternative to other judicial remedies or complementary or supplementary to such actions.44 It is not a means by which the correctness of a decision by the trial court can be challenged.[45] The law provides sufficient judicial remedies against error or irregularities committed by a judge. Ordinary remedies include a motion for reconsideration or an appeal, while extraordinary remedies can be the special civil actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, a motion for inhibition, or a petition for change of venue, if applicable.[46]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1918 2005-06-08	MARILOU PUNONGBAYAN VISITACION v. JUDGE MAXIMINO MAGNO LIBRE TINGA, J.
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of these remedies, as well as entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative, or criminal in nature.[41] It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.[42]