This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-11-16 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| A review of the records shows that complainant failed to timely raise her concerns in an appropriate judicial proceeding. Until and unless there is an authoritative pronouncement that the questioned orders of the respondent Judges were indeed tainted by anomaly, there would be no ground lo prosecute the respondent Judges, either administratively or criminally, for rendering them.[30] Thus, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available, for if subsequent developments prove the judge's challenged act to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all.[31] Thus, the charges being judicial in nature, the remedy of the complainant should have been with the proper court for the appropriate judicial action and not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint.[32] | |||||
|
2006-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In this case, complainant's allegation of ignorance of the law actually pertains to respondent judge's exercise of his adjudicative functions. Complainant assails as erroneous respondent judge's order granting the motion for reduction of bail and his decision, based on his appreciation of the evidence, in the cases of People v. Pampag, People v. Tuburan and People v. Hormina. However, complainant failed to show that respondent judge's error, if any, was gross, deliberate, malicious or attended by bad faith. Such error cannot be corrected by administrative proceeding but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari.[25] An administrative complaint is not the proper remedy because administrative remedies are "neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must await the results thereof."[26] If complainant felt prejudiced by respondent judge's decision or order, his remedy lies with the court for the proper judicial action, not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint.[27] | |||||
|
2003-07-03 |
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] | |||||