This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A perusal of the records of the case as well as the parties' respective allegations disclosed that the acts complained of relate to the validity of the proceedings before the respondent CA Justices and the propriety of their orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 118994 which were done in the exercise of their judicial functions. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that errors, if any, committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through available judicial remedies.[19] Disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies and, thus, cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by their erroneous orders or judgments.[20] | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have ruled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden to prove his accusations against respondent with substantial evidence or such amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[6] This Court has consistently ruled that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[7] | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| We have ruled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden to prove his accusations against respondent with substantial evidence or such amount of evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[6] This Court has consistently ruled that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[7] | |||||