Tallado v. Judge Dating

A judge's judicial acts, even if erroneous, cannot be subject to disciplinary action unless proven to be tainted with bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty, and administrative complaints filed prematurely to harass a judge may warrant a show cause order for indirect contempt.

Complainants are the Governor, Vice Governor, and Board Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Camarines Norte. Respondent is the Presiding Judge of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte. The dispute arose from administrative cases filed by the SP against Mayor Senandro Jalgalado of Capalonga, Camarines Norte, and Mayor Jalgalado's subsequent petitions for certiorari seeking to enjoin the SP's preventive suspension and suspension orders, which were raffled to Respondent.

The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines Norte recommended the preventive suspension of Mayor Senandro Jalgalado of Capalonga for abuse of authority. On December 19, 2018, Governor Tallado issued a Notice of Preventive Suspension. Mayor Jalgalado immediately filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with TRO before the RTC of Daet, docketed as Special Civil Case No. 8374, which was raffled to Respondent Judge Dating. Complainants moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and availability of other remedies. On December 21, 2018, Respondent refused to extend the 72-hour TRO but, after a summary hearing on January 9, 2019, issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the preventive suspension. On January 24, 2019, Respondent granted the petition, declaring the preventive suspension order issued with grave abuse of discretion, and issued a permanent injunction.

Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, Complainants filed an administrative complaint against Respondent for Gross Ignorance of the Law. Meanwhile, the SP proceeded with the administrative case and found Mayor Jalgalado guilty, suspending him for six months. Mayor Jalgalado filed a second Petition for Certiorari, docketed as Civil Case No. 8403, again raffled to Respondent. Complainants manifested the impropriety of the petition and moved for Respondent's voluntary inhibition. On April 8, 2019, Respondent temporarily set aside the inhibition issue and granted a 20-day TRO. Two days later, Respondent inhibited himself. Despite the inhibition, Complainants filed a second administrative complaint against Respondent for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct. The OCA consolidated the complaints, found Respondent liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law, and recommended a fine of P40,000.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Complainants argued that Respondent should be held liable for taking cognizance of the petitions for certiorari despite Mayor Jalgalado's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the RTC's lack of jurisdiction.
• Gross Misconduct and Bias: Complainants faulted Respondent for granting injunctive reliefs without Mayor Jalgalado establishing a clear right to his office and grave and irreparable injury. They also alleged bias and prejudice due to Respondent's refusal to inhibit initially, followed by inhibition two days later.
• Forum Shopping by Respondent: Respondent posited that Complainants were guilty of forum shopping for filing two administrative complaints.

• Judicial Remedies Available: Respondent argued that Complainants should have availed of judicial remedies like a motion for reconsideration instead of filing administrative cases against him.
• Forum Shopping by Complainants: Respondent claimed Complainants were guilty of forum shopping for filing two separate administrative complaints and misrepresenting in their certification against forum shopping.

• Forum Shopping: Whether Complainants are guilty of forum shopping.
• Administrative Liability: Whether Respondent is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct.
• Indirect Contempt: Whether Complainants should be ordered to show cause why they should not be cited for indirect contempt.

• Forum Shopping: No. The rule on forum shopping applies only to judicial cases or proceedings, not administrative cases, unless a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping is expressly required.
• Administrative Liability: No. The administrative complaints were prematurely filed because Complainants did not exhaust available judicial remedies, and there was no substantial evidence of bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty on the part of Respondent.
• Indirect Contempt: Yes. Complainants were ordered to show cause why they should not be cited for indirect contempt for filing premature administrative complaints intended to harass or vex the judge.

• Forum Shopping: The rule on forum shopping applies to judicial cases, not administrative cases under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Even if applied, the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata are not present. The first complaint concerns acts in Special Civil Case No. 8374, while the second concerns acts in Civil Case No. 8403. The certification against forum shopping was not falsified because Complainants accurately disclosed the prior complaint.
• Administrative Liability: Judicial acts done in the course of a judge's functions cannot be subject to disciplinary action, no matter how erroneous, unless tainted with bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty. Complainants did not file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, making the administrative complaints premature. Respondent's deviation from procedural rules (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) was justifiable due to the political nature of the case, the timeline, and public interest. There was no evidence of bad faith; Respondent acted to protect the constituents' right to representation. For Gross Misconduct, there was no substantial evidence of corruption, intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules.
• Indirect Contempt: Applying the guidelines in Tallado vs. Judge Racoma, the complaints were prematurely filed and appeared intended to harass Respondent. Complainants held influential positions, filed two related complaints, and had a propensity for filing administrative cases against judges (as seen in Tallado vs. Judge Racoma). Thus, they were ordered to show cause for indirect contempt.

• Immunity of Judges from Administrative Liability for Judicial Acts — A judge cannot be held administratively liable for acts done in the performance of judicial functions, even if erroneous, unless done with bad faith, fraud, malice, or dishonesty. Disciplinary proceedings are not a substitute for judicial remedies.
• Exhaustion of Judicial Remedies — Before filing an administrative complaint against a judge, a complainant must first exhaust available judicial remedies, such as a motion for reconsideration or appeal. Administrative complaints filed prematurely may be dismissed outright.
• Exceptions to Motion for Reconsideration and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies — The requirement to file a motion for reconsideration and exhaust administrative remedies admits exceptions, such as when there is an urgent necessity for resolution, public interest is involved, or when the issue is purely legal.
• Harassment Suits Against Judges — In determining if an administrative case against a judge is a harassment suit, factors include the existence of other cases, the complainant's position and influence, the number of times the judge has been charged, prior decisions against the complainant, and the complainant's propensity for filing administrative cases.

• "an administrative action is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available" — This passage establishes the principle that judicial remedies must be exhausted before administrative proceedings can prosper against a judge.
• "To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable." — This underscores the rationale for protecting judges from administrative liability for erroneous judgments absent 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 a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud." — This defines the standard of bad faith required to hold a judge administratively liable for judicial acts.

• Tallado vs. Judge Racoma — Established the guidelines for evaluating administrative complaints against judges to weed out harassment suits. Applied to determine if the complaints were harassment suits and to order Complainants to show cause for indirect contempt.
• Spouses De Guzman vs. Pamintuan — Held that administrative actions are not appropriate remedies for erroneous judicial orders and that judges are not liable for errors absent bad faith. Applied to dismiss the complaints for being prematurely filed.
• Flores vs. Abesamis — Discussed the availability of ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies against judicial errors and the policy that disciplinary proceedings are not substitutes for these remedies. Cited to support the dismissal.
• Yap vs. Chua — Defined forum shopping. Applied to determine that Complainants were not guilty of forum shopping.

• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Defines the requisites for a writ of certiorari. Applied to assess whether Respondent properly took cognizance of the petitions.
• Rule 140, Rules of Court — Governs the discipline of judges and justices. Noted that it does not require a Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping, meaning the rule on forum shopping does not strictly apply to administrative cases against judges.
• Section 63(b), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) — Provides the grounds for preventive suspension of local officials. Cited by Respondent in granting the petition in Special Civil Case No. 8374.
• Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Mandates professional competence on the part of a judge. Cited by the OCA in recommending that Respondent be found liable, though the Court ultimately dismissed the complaints.

Leonan, SAJ., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Gesmundo, C.J., no part.