This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-10-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| True is the principle that an administrative case is not the proper remedy for alleged errors committed by a judge in deciding a case where a judicial remedy exists. But in Roxas v. Eugenio,[39] the Court held that 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 judge is administratively liable; and in Senson v. Pangilinan[40] the Court expounded that the existence of judicial remedy does not preclude resort to an administrative remedy.[41] | |||||