ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ)
“x x x,
On the Charges of Grave Incompetence
and Gross Ignorance of the Law
We agree with the findings of the OCA that not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties renders him liable.27 "[A]s a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous."28
In the present case, what was involved was the respondent’s application of Section 23, Rule 4 of the Rules, which provides:
Sec. 23. Approval of the Rehabilitation Plan. - The court may approve a rehabilitation plan even over the opposition of creditors holding a majority of the total liabilities of the debtor if, in its judgment, the rehabilitation of the debtor is feasible and the opposition of the creditors is manifestly unreasonable.29
The respondent approved the rehabilitation plan submitted by Atty. Gabionza, subject to the modifications she found necessary to make the plan viable. The complainant alleged that in modifying the plan, she exceeded her authority and effectively usurped the functions of a rehabilitation receiver. We find, however, that in failing to show that the respondent was motivated by bad faith or ill motives in rendering the assailed decision, the charge of gross ignorance of the law against her should be dismissed. "To [rule] 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."30
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence. It must also be proven that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption31 or had committed an error so egregious that it amounted to bad faith.
In the present case, nothing in the records suggests that the respondent was motivated by bad faith, fraud, corruption, dishonesty or egregious error in rendering her decision approving the modified rehabilitation plan. Besides his bare accusations, the complainant failed to substantiate his allegations with competent proof. Bad faith cannot be presumed32 and this Court cannot conclude that bad faith intervened when none was actually proven.
X x x.”
