Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EXEC. JUDGE DAVID C. NAVAL v. JUDGE JOSE R. PANDAY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 168237 2006-02-22	THELMA BUDUHAN v. CURSON PAKURAO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While it is true that during the proceedings before the RTC, the respondents introduced another set of affidavits sworn to by Beatriz Cobsilen and Jerry Gayyad retracting their earlier sworn statements, the same should not be given much weight. Time and again we have looked with disfavor on statements of retraction of witnesses. It is axiomatic that just because one has executed an affidavit of retraction does by no means imply that what has been previously said is false or the latter is true. On the contrary, affidavits of retraction can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for financial considerations and such being the case, said retractions are exceedingly unreliable for there is always the probability of their being repudiated subsequently.[34]
	AM No. RTJ-04-1889 2004-12-22	MA. CECILIA L. PESAYCO v. JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE TINGA, J,
However, not every mistake by a judge in the application of the law is vulnerable to an attack for gross ignorance of the law. A caveat was laid down by this Court that for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.[39] Similarly, a judge will be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment one which is contrary to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive.[40] In other words, in order to hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is and that it was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.[41] In fine, bad faith is the ground for liability in either or both offenses.[42]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1755 2003-07-03	JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE AMALIA F. DY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only found to be erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.[13] Similarly, a judge will be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment - one which is contrary to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence - when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive.[14] In other words, in order to hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.[15]