In the recent case of 3-D INDUSTRIES, INC. and SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. JUSTICES VICENTE Q. ROXAS and JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., AM Mo. Ca-10-50-J, October 5, 2010 , the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal complaint for violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act filed by losing litigants against two appellate justices. The Court held, inter alia, that "not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice,[26] which is not the case here." The doctrinal pronouncements of the Court are quoted below, for legal research purposes, thus:
1. There are two ways by which Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 may be violated,[16] viz: 1) by giving undue injury to any party, including the Government, 2) by causing any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.[17] These acts must be committed with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross and inexcusable negligence.
2. Manifest partiality has been defined as “a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other.”[18] Bad faith connotes not only bad judgment or negligence, but also a dishonest purpose, a conscious wrongdoing, or a breach of duty amounting to fraud.[19] Gross negligence is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences as far as other persons are concerned.[20]
3. That the assailed Resolutions issued by respondents favored NICI and the Guy family does not necessarily render respondents guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, absent proven particular acts of manifest, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, good faith and regularity being generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public officers.[21]
4. That is why administrative complaints against judges must always be examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that they stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or disbarment.[22] In order for this administrative offense to prosper, the subject order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, more importantly, must be attended by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.[23]
5. Since the impleading of additional parties, on motion of any party or motu proprio at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just is allowed,[24] the Court finds that respondents’ participation in the admission of the supplemental petitions impleading herein complainants as respondents in CA-G.R.SP No. 87104 does not render them administratively liable.
6. While respondents may have based the assailed Resolutions on mere allegations, thus disregarding what has been established in jurisprudence that “mere allegation that a corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders is insufficient,”[25] this does not render them administratively liable because not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice,[26] which is not the case here.
