'x x x.
In Santos V. Orlino, the Supreme Court held that judges are not held liable for what they do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their judicial powers and functions. To hold otherwise would render judicial office untenable for no one called upon to try the fact and interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be imfaltible in his judgment. In otherwords, for administrative liability to attach it must be established that respondent was moved by bad faith, hatred, dishonesty and some other motive.
In the case at bar, it was never established that the respondent judge was moved by ill-will and bad faith in rendering the adverse decision.
The relative immunity, that judges may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous order or decision he renders, granted is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary is performing his adjudicatory prerogative. Such immunity does not relieve a judge of his obligation to observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his judicial functions. Given the prevailing facts of the case respondent judge must be faulted for his tardiness in resolving the election case.
As stated in Ruperto v. Banquerigo, the office of a judge exists for one solemn end- to promote the ends of justice by administering it speedily and impartially. The judge as the person presiding over that court is the visible representation of the law and justice. These are self-evident dogmas which do not even have to be emphasized, but to which we are wont to advert to when some members of the judiciary commit legal missteps or stray from the axioms of judicial ethics.
Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes serious violations of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. Moreover, Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly provide:
Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
x x x."
