You're currently signed in as:
User

ATTY. ANTONIO T. GUERRERO v. ADRIANO VILLAMOR

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

2004-12-22
TINGA, J,
However, not every mistake by a judge in the application of the law is vulnerable to an attack for gross ignorance of the law. A caveat was laid down by this Court that for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found to be erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive.[39] Similarly, a judge will be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment one which is contrary to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive.[40] In other words, in order to hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is and that it was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice.[41] In fine, bad faith is the ground for liability in either or both offenses.[42]
2004-01-15
PANGANIBAN, J.
We have already ruled that as long as the judgment remains unsatisfied, it would be erroneous to order the cancellation of a bond filed for the discharge of a writ of attachment.[32] In like manner, it would be erroneous to order the withdrawal of a cash deposit before judgment is rendered.  Be that as it may, "a [judge] may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order x x x he renders."[33] Otherwise, a judicial office would be untenable,[34] for "no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible."[35] For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order of a judge must not only be erroneous; more important, it must be motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motive.[36] Certainly, mere error of judgment is not a ground for disciplinary proceedings.[37]