Administrative remedies not alternative or cumulative to judicial remedies - G.R. No. 165338

G.R. No. 165338

"x x x.

Indubitably, Mahinay’s allegations of gross ignorance of the law and abdication of judicial duty are not based on his sincere and strong belief that Judge Gako should be disciplined. They are mere ploys calculated to induce Judge Gako to grant his motion. We cannot countenance such lamentable scheme of Mahinay. It is settled that disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies. Administrative complaints are not intended to coerce judges to rule in complainant’s favor. Fittingly, we reiterate our pronouncement in Atty. Flores v. Hon. Abesamis:[76]

Law and logic decree that “administrative or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof.” Indeed, since judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be had only if “there be a final declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, and also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance or inexcusable negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said judgment or order” x x x.

Indeed, unless it can be shown that their acts are tainted with bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, judges cannot be held administratively liable for rendering an erroneous judgment[77] simply because they are not infallible.[78]

Instead of threatening Judge Gako with administrative charges, Mahinay could have simply awaited the resolution of G.R. No. 165338. Unfortunately, as earlier discussed, his own impatience mooted G.R. No. 165338.

With regard to Judge Gako’s alleged tardiness in resolving the Reiteratory Motion, it cannot escape our attention, however, that he was never given a chance to comment or answer the complaint against him. Thus, we cannot resolve the administrative charge of failing to resolve the motion on time without trifling with his constitutionally enshrined right to due process.

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a party's right to due process raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction.[79]

For the expeditious and orderly conduct of proceedings, therefore, we find it appropriate to refer said administrative charge to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action.

x x x."