This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-08-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| 2477 or to give the accused therein the unwarranted benefit of probation, it being clear from the evidence that only Judge Mijares perpetrated the act. Neither did they refuse to issue certified true copies of relevant documents in Crim. Case No. 2477 since it was established that the custody of the requested documents was not with respondents so that they could not have refused the request. Something more had to be presented than complainant's loose statements. However, we do not agree with the other conclusion in the report that the offense of Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Issuing Unjust Interlocutory Orders has not been established since, according to Justice Cruz, the basic fact of injustice must still be determined a priori by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding, thus implying that the present administrative case is not suited for this purpose. We stress that the instant proceeding is itself an appropriate process to assail the injustice caused by respondent Judge's orders and to penalize him for it. In De Vera v. Pelayo[49] we said that a decision or order may be pronounced "unjust" in the | |||||