This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2006-06-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding against court employees falls on complainant,[11] who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail.[12] Moreover, in the absence of cogent proof, bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.[13] In fact, administrative complaints leveled against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that respondents stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[14] The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation.[15] | |||||
|
2006-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J |
||||
| In an administrative case, if the respondent judge must be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against the miscreant magistrate should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[18] The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after presentation of the required quantum of evidence especially because the charge is punitive by nature.[19] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This Court has ruled that when a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law.[13] However, gross ignorance of the law is more than an erroneous application of legal provisions. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.[14] 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.[15] | |||||
|
2004-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In connection with the above, the petitioners now impute bad faith on Judge Dumatol suggesting that the adverse decision rendered against them was a result of the administrative case they had filed against him.[29] We have, however, examined the assailed decision and the records of this case and are convinced that Judge Dumatol's conclusion is fully supported by the evidence. In this regard, we find untenable the petitioners' bare allegation that Judge Dumatol was swayed by ill motive when he chose to uphold the contentions of herein respondents (petitioners below). Indeed, it is axiomatic that "[m]ere suspicion that the judge is partial to a party is not enough; there should be adequate evidence to prove the charge."[30] In order to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment in question was rendered with a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate injustice.[31] If anything, the decision of the court a quo should be commended for its clarity of discussion and reasoning. The fact that herein petitioners disagree with the trial court's ruling is insufficient to overthrow Judge Dumatol's conclusion and subject the same to uncalled for insinuations. | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are by their nature highly penal, such that respondent stands to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[28] Mere suspicion, as in this case, that a judge was partial to a party is not enough.[29] Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent judge connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, it would entail dismissal from the service, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial.[30] Even in an administrative case, the rules demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge of the witness. The Judiciary to which herein respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after the presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.[31] | |||||