This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| While a judge may not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for every erroneous order that he renders, it is also axiomatic that when the legal principle involved is sufficiently basic, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[44] Indeed, even though a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives.[45] It does not mean that a judge need not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his official functions.[46] This is because if judges wantonly misuse the powers vested in them by the law, there will be not only confusion in the administration of justice but also oppressive disregard of the basic requirements of due process.[47] | |||||