This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-27 |
|||||
| It is settled that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith.[21] To hold, otherwise, would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.[22] An inquiry into the administrative liability of a judge may be resorted to only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality.[23] For until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether respondent is administratively liable.[24] | |||||
|
2003-07-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As held in the recent case of Sacmar v. Judge Reyes-Carpio,[18] a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and baseless order will prosper, only if it is shown that the issuance of the order was indeed unjust and the respondents did not merely commit an error of judgment or took the unpopular side of a controversial point of law. Their failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render them administratively liable.[19] Magistrates are not expected to be infallible in their judgments. | |||||