This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| For a judge to be administratively liable for ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must be gross or patent.[25] To constitute gross ignorance of the law, such acts must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but also motivated by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty.[26] That certainly does not appear to be the case here as petitioner's complaint was spawned merely by the honest divergence of opinion between petitioner and respondent judge as to the legal issues and applicable laws involved.[27] Petitioner also proffered no evidence that respondent judge's acts were imbued with malice or bad faith. | |||||