Administrative complaints against judges cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties.

"First, we find the charges of ignorance of the law bereft of merit. It is clear that the respondent judge’s order was issued in the proper exercise of his judicial functions, and as such, is not subject to administrative disciplinary action; especially considering that the complainant failed to establish bad faith on the part of respondent judge. Well entrenched is the rule that a judge may not be administratively sanctioned for mere errors of judgment in the absence of showing of any bad faith, fraud, malice, gross
ignorance, corrupt purpose, or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his or her part.6

Complainant assails the propriety of the decision rendered by
respondent judge. Complainant should be reminded that unfavorable rulings are not necessarily erroneous. Should he disagree with the court’s ruling, there are judicial remedies available under the Rules of Court. As a matter of public policy, a judge cannot be subjected to liability for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. 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.7

Moreover, we have explained that administrative complaints against judges cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by the erroneous orders or judgments of the former. Administrative remedies are neither alternative to judicial review nor do they cumulate thereto, where such review is still available to the aggrieved parties and the cases have not yet been resolved with finality.8

In the instant case, complainant had in fact availed of the remedy of a motion for reconsideration prior to his filing of the administrative complaint. On the charge of undue delay in resolving the motion for
reconsideration, we find merit in the explanation of respondent judge. The Court is aware of the complexity of estate proceedings and the numerous motions filed in those cases. In the absence of any evidence to show any improper motive or reason that could have compelled respondent judge to delay the resolution of the motion, the delay could only be attributed to inadvertence, especially considering the overlapping motions filed by complainant. It is significant to note the report of respondent judge that he has already resolved the other motions assailed by complainant.

Be that as it may, respondent judge admitted that he may have
inadvertently failed to categorically address the motion for reconsideration."


See - 
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-3492-RTJ. December 4, 2013
Narciso G. Dulalia Vs. Judge Afable E. Cajigal, RTC, Br. 96, Quezon City