This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-10-25 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the charges for incompetence, ignorance of the law and dishonesty, complainants utterly failed to present substantial proof to negate the presumptions of good faith and the regularity in the performance of judicial functions. It is true that "judges may be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law when it is shown that -- motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption -- they ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence."[46] The Court has thoroughly elucidated in Re: Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC, Br. 143, Makati[47] that:" By its nature, judicial discretion involves the exercise of judgment on the part of the judge. The judge must be allowed a reasonable latitude for the operation of his own individual view of the case, his appreciation of the facts, and his understanding of the applicable law on the matter. '" | |||||