"X x x.
Although said order was subsequently set
aside by the Regional Trial Court and
the Court of Appeals, nevertheless, its issuance was an exercise of judicial discretion coupled with the
fact that complainant adduced no evidence to prove that it was motivated by bad
faith.
[Bad] faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity
and conscious doing of wrong; it means breach of a known duty thru some motive
or interest or ill will x x x.[6] In this case, respondent’s order can
hardly be considered as evidence of bad faith under the circumstances. In fact, there was testimony to the
effect that complainant tried to justify the increased rental. Granting that it
was erroneous, it is presumed to have been issued in good faith in the absence
of proof to the contrary.[7]
This Court reiterates the legal doctrine
that, as a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are
erroneous. Good faith and
absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient
defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.[8]
As to the imputation of partiality in the
rendition of respondent’s decision dismissing the amended complaint, that can,
at best, be considered as speculative. No evidence may be gleaned from the
records to prove that respondent favored Albert Ng in his decision. If at all, the imputation of
partiality is a mere suspicion. Mere
suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough to
subject him to disciplinary action by this Court.[9]
In any case, the filing of this
administrative case should not have been complainant’s remedy. This Court agrees with the Office of
the Court Administrator, thus:
“x x x If
complainant was prejudiced thereby, its remedy lies with the proper court for
the proper judicial action and not with this Office. An appeal of the decision to the Court
of Appeals would have been appropriate. It
puzzles Us why this was not done, despite the tenability of complainant’s legal
position. In any case,
complainant has failed to prove nor do we believe that any error committed by
respondent Judge was motivated by any improper consideration.”[10]
Furthermore, a judge is not administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision rendered provided he acts in
good faith and without malice. The
proper remedy of the aggrieved party is not an administrative charge against
the judge but an appeal or petition for review of his decision.[11]
X x x."
