see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/12-202-CA-J.pdf
"x x x.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the complaint.
A perusal of the records of the case as well as the parties’ respective
allegations disclosed that the acts complained of relate to the validity of the
proceedings before the respondent CA Justices and the propriety of their orders in CA-G.R. SP No. 118994 which were done in the exercise of their judicial functions. Jurisprudence is replete with cases holding that errors, if any, committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through available judicial remedies.
Disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies and, thus, cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by their erroneous orders or judgments. xxx we ruled that resort to and
exhaustion of judicial remedies and a final ruling on the matter, are
prerequisites for the taking of appropriate measures against the judges
concerned, whether of criminal, civil or administrative nature. If the assailed act is subsequently found and declared to be correct, there would be no occasion to proceed against him at all.
In this case, AMALI had already filed a petition for review on certiorari
challenging the questioned order of the respondent CA Justices, which is still pending final action by the Court. Consequently, a decision on the validity of the proceedings and propriety of the orders of the respondent CA Justices in this administrative proceeding would be premature.
Besides, even if the subject decision or portions thereof turn out to be erroneous, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by fraud or corruption, which were not sufficiently shown to exist in this case. Neither was bias as well as partiality established. Acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of
arbitrariness or prejudice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party.
Here, other than AMALI's bare and self-serving claim that respondent CA Justices “conspired with WWRAI's counsel in knowingly and in bad faith rendering an unjust judgment and in committing x x x other misconduct,"
Moreover, the matters raised are best addressed to the evaluation of the Court in the resolution of AMALI's petition for review on certiorari.
Finally, resort to administrative disciplinary action prior to the final resolution of the judicial issues involved constitutes an abuse of court processes that serves to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice and further clog the courts' dockets. Those who seek relief from the courts must not be allowed to ignore basic legal rules and abuse court processes in their efforts to vindicate their rights.
xxx."
