Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORMANDY R. BAUTISTA v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165338 2011-11-28	MAKILITO B. MAHINAY v. IRENEO LEE GAKO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, unless it can be shown that their acts are tainted with bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, judges cannot be held administratively liable for rendering an erroneous judgment[77] simply because they are not infallible.[78]
	AM No. CA-08-45-J 2010-02-22	ATTY. DENNIS V. NIÑO v. JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO PEREZ, J.
Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the filing of the instant administrative complaint was meant to harass respondent. Furthermore, it is notable that only respondent was singled out in the complaint despite the fact that the challenged Resolutions were a collective decision of the Court of Appeals Seventeenth Division. In Bautista v. Associate Justice Abdulwahid,[21] this Court held that the Court of Appeals is a collegiate court whose members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. The filing of charges against a single member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate.[22]
	AM No. CA-10-49-J 2010-01-28	RAMON C. GONZALES v. CA ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The records show that indeed Atty. Verano signed the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 89358 as collaborating counsel.[12] He was, therefore, entitled to receive a copy of the appellate court's resolutions including that which directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. In any event, the order to issue the writ of preliminary injunction was the collective act of the members of the Ninth Division of the Court. Bautista v. Abdulwahid enlightens:[13]
	AM No. CA-09-47-J 2009-02-13	GENARO SANTIAGO III v. JUSTICE JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
It bears particular stress in the present case that the filing of charges against a single member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate. The Decision was not rendered by respondent in his individual capacity. It was a product of the consultations and deliberations by the Special Division of five. Consider the following pronouncement in Bautista v. Abdulwahid:[28]
	AM Nos. 07-115-CA-J and CA-08-46-J 2008-08-20	ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO v. JUSTICE VICENTE Q. ROXAS CORONA, J.
In its memorandum, the OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The January 29, 2007 decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals as a collegiate body, not by respondent alone. The conclusions in the said decision were reached in consultation and rendered as a collective judgment after due deliberation.[7] Thus, the filing of charges of misconduct and unethical behavior against respondent was inappropriate.[8] Moreover, an administrative complaint was not the appropriate remedy since judicial recourse was still available.[9]