Judgment call

Errors in the discharge of judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary actions unless they are tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. This is illustrated in this case of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) lady Judge (Judge FA).

Judge FA was the presiding judge of a RTC branch in which a civil case for Support with a prayer for Support Pendent elite filed by Chit against Larry, the father of her two minor sons, was pending. The case was submitted for decision on December 9, 2004. On March 22, 2004, Judge FA rendered a decision dismissing Chit’s complaint “without prejudice”. And when Chit tried to appeal the said decision by filing a notice of appeal, Judge FA denied her notice of appeal.

Chit felt aggrieved and thought that Judge FA’s decision dismissing her complaint and then denying her appeal was erroneous. So she filed an administrative complaint against Judge FA for, among others, rendering an erroneous decision in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

In reply, Judge FA contended that she denied Chit’s notice of appeal because if the dismissal is without prejudice the remedy is the filing of another action and not an appeal citing in support thereof, Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which provides that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. Besides Judge FA said that her dismissal of the case and the denial of the notice of appeal even if erroneous, are not proper subjects of an administrative case as they are acts pertaining to her judicial functions. Was Judge FA correct?

Yes. An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available. In this case, Chit still has an appropriate remedy which is to file another action since the dismissal is without prejudice. Acts of judges pertaining to their judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary action unless they are tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty. Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against magistrates do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts and interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. This is one of the rulings in the case of Edano vs. Asdala, A.M. RTJ-06-2007, December 6, 2010).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]