This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-08-09 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Ultimate facts mean the important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the plaintiff's primary right and duty or directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant.[50] | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| documents to substantiate the allegations. In the case at bar, except for complainant's bare allegations, surmises, suspicions and rhetorics, no competent evidence was presented to prove that Judge Legaspi committed corruption. Regarding the charge of ignorance of the law, the settled doctrine is that judges are not administratively responsible for what they may do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction.[13] A judge | |||||
|
2003-02-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The settled doctrine is that judges are not liable to respond in a civil action for damages, and are not otherwise administratively responsible for what they may do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction.[10] Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders.[11] To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.[12] More importantly, the error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith.[13] Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[14] It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes.[15] | |||||
|
2000-09-27 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The fundamental propositions governing responsibility for judicial error were more recently summarized in In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo.[43] There the Court stressed, inter alia, that given the nature of judicial function and the power vested in the Supreme Court and the lower courts established by law, administrative or criminal complaints are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial remedies where such are available, and must wait on the result thereof. Existing doctrine is that judges are not liable for what they do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction.[44] Certain it is that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders.[45] To hold otherwise would render judicial office untenable for no one called upon to try the fact or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.[46] The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith.[47] Stated succinctly, for administrative liability to attach it must be established that respondent was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other motive[48] and as defined - | |||||