This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-08-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time forgets.[24] They are expected to have more than just a modicum acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules.[25] For this reason alone, respondent Justices' adoption of the irregular procedure cannot be dismissed as a mere deficiency in prudence or as a lapse in judgment on their part, but should be treated as simple misconduct, which is to be distinguished from either gross misconduct or gross ignorance of the law. The respondent Justices were not liable for gross misconduct - defined as the transgression of some established or definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence,[26] or the corrupt or persistent violation of the law or disregard of well-known legal rules[27] - considering that the explanations they have offered herein, which the complainant did not refute, revealed that they strove to maintain their collegiality by holding their separate hearings within sight and hearing distance of one another. Neither were they liable for gross ignorance of the law, which must be based on reliable evidence to show that the act complained of was ill-motivated, corrupt, or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules;[28] on the contrary, none of these circumstances was attendant herein, for the respondent Justices have convincingly shown that they had not been ill-motivated or inspired by an intention to violate any law or legal rule in adopting the erroneous procedure, but had been seeking, instead, to thereby expedite their disposition of cases in the provinces. | |||||
|
2006-03-21 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that lack of conversance with legal principles sufficiently basic and elementary constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[4] As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to be proficient in the interpretation of our laws.[5] | |||||
|
2006-03-21 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
| [15] Community Rural Bank of Guimba v. Talavera, supra at p. 39, per Panganiban, J. (now CJ). See also Requierme v. Yuipco, 399 Phil. 578, November 27, 2000; Cui v. Madayag, 314 Phil. 846, June 5, 1995. | |||||