Módulo profesional: Bioseguridade

Grounds for administrative cases against Judges: serious misconduct

inefficiency

In re: Impeachment of Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212

Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment. “For serious misconduct to exist, there must be a reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts

complained of were corrupt or were inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.”

In re: Climaco, Adm. Case no. 134-J (Jan. 21, 1974) 55 SCRA 107

Inefficiency implies negligence, ignorance and carelessness. A judge would be inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. Serious misconduct or inefficiency:

Misconduct – wrongful intention and not mere error in judgment (Raquiza vs. Castaneda,

82 SCRA 235)

Serious Misconduct – exists when the judicial act complained of is corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Galangi vs.

Macli-ing, Adm. Matter No. 75-DJ, Jan. 17, 1978)

Serious Inefficiency – an example is negligence in the performance of duty, if reckless in character (Lapena vs. Collado, 76 SCRA 82).

Q: Upon retirement, B left 7 criminal cases and 3 civil cases undecided within the 90-day period required by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. He says it was due to serious illness. May he be disciplined?

A: Members of the bench have a duty to administer justice without undue delay. Failure to do so within the reglamentary period constitutes a neglect of duty warranting administrative penalties. If hindered by illness, a judge should inform the Office of the Court Administrator and ask for additional time in order to avoid the sanctions. However, if there is no malice or bad faith, and the judge is prevented by factors beyond his control, the penalty will be mitigated. (Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag Jr., 306 SCRA

50).

Error or Ignorance of Law:

Error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith. Must act fraudulently, corruptly or with gross ignorance.

Caveat: not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties make him liable therefore. To hold the judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or

decision he renders, assuming he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. (Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301).

Aurillo vs. Francisco, 235 SCRA 238 (1994)

If the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it,

constitutes ignorance of the law. A judge who disregards basic rules and settled jurisprudence shows gross ignorance of law. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know,

excuses no one – not even judges. Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusat.

Bengzon vs. Adaoag, 250 SCRA 344 (1995)

To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision. The error must be grave and on so fundamental a point as to warrant condemnation of the judge as patently ignorant or negligent.

Buenaventura vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 598 (1990)

A judge who dismissed a rape case upon desistance of the 11-year-old rape victim and who allowed compromise of said case with his intervention by the accused paying the victim is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, liable for dismissal from the service, for as judge he should have known that the victim’s consent in a statutory rape is invalid and the compromise is an admission of guilt and his participation therein is unbecoming of a judge.

State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 251 SCRA 111 (1995)

Egregious legal error, legal error motivated by bad faith, or a continuing pattern of legal error, on the part of a judge does amount to misconduct which may be subject to discipline. A legal error is egregious and serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights, such as when defendants were not advised of their constitutional rights to counsel, coerced to plead guilty, sentenced to jail when only a fine is provided by law, sentenced to jail for a period longer than the maximum sentence allowed by law, or when defendant or the prosecution was denied a full and fair hearing. A judge’s act

of motu proprio dismissing a criminal case for violation of foreign exchange restrictions, without waiting for the defense to file a motion to quash or without affording the prosecution the opportunity to be heard on the matter, constitutes gross ignorance of law calling for his dismissal.

Revita vs. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 (1980)

A judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment, unless there is proof that the error was attributable to a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. For as a

matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are

erroneous. This does not mean, however, that he should not evince due care in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives.

Filipinas Bank vs. Tirona-Liwag, 190 SCRA 834 (1990)

Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protecting a judicial officer charged with ignorance of the law and

promulgation of an unjust decision from being held accountable for errors of judgment on the premise that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible.