Tallado vs. Racoma

Errors committed by judges in the exercise of their adjudicative functions cannot be the subject of an administrative complaint absent a showing of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice; a request for judicial audit resorted to as a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, or influence judges constitutes improper pressure warranting contempt proceedings.

Representative Josefina B. Tallado, representing the 1st District of Camarines Norte, is the wife of Governor Edgardo A. Tallado, who was himself a respondent in special civil actions pending before the branches presided over by Judges Winston S. Racoma (Branch 39) and Arniel A. Dating (Branch 41) of the Regional Trial Court in Daet, Camarines Norte. Only three RTC judges and one Family Court judge serve the station at Daet. Prior to the instant case, multiple administrative complaints had been filed against both judges by Governor Tallado and individuals associated with him, most of which resulted in dismissal or the imposition of sanctions against the complainants for filing premature or harassment suits. Administrative Order No. 63-2020, issued February 18, 2020, required judges to submit to the Office of the Chief Justice copies of TROs, status quo ante orders, and writs of preliminary injunction within five days of issuance, effective March 1, 2020.

Representative Josefina B. Tallado, the wife of Camarines Norte Governor Edgardo A. Tallado, sent a letter dated January 5, 2021 to the Office of the Court Administrator requesting a judicial audit of the branches presided over by Judge Winston S. Racoma (Branch 39) and Judge Arniel A. Dating (Branch 41) of the Regional Trial Court in Daet, Camarines Norte. She claimed to have received reports of anomalous issuances of temporary restraining orders and of cases being heard irrespective of jurisdiction, though she admitted she was not privy to the specifics. She framed the request as a duty to her constituents to ensure an efficient and just judicial system. Governor Tallado was himself a respondent in SP Civil Case Nos. 8484 and 8513, two of the cases in which Judge Racoma had issued the challenged TROs.

The OCA dispatched a judicial audit team to Branches 38, 39, and 41 in Daet and Branch 64 in Labo, and on January 22, 2021 issued a memorandum directing Judges Racoma and Dating to submit copies of TROs issued from January 2, 2019 in compliance with Administrative Order No. 63-2020. The audit revealed two principal findings: first, that Judge Racoma had issued TROs in SP Civil Case Nos. 8484 and 8513 without conducting the required summary hearing, in violation of Administrative Circular No. 20-95; and second, that both judges had failed to comply with Administrative Order No. 63-2020, which required submission of copies of TROs, status quo ante orders, and writs of preliminary injunction to the Office of the Chief Justice within five days of issuance. The OCA opined that Judge Racoma's failure to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95 constituted gross ignorance of the law, noting that a TRO may be issued ex parte only in cases of extreme urgency by the Executive Judge, effective for 72 hours, after which a summary hearing must be conducted by the judge to whom the case was raffled.

In their respective comments, both judges offered explanations. Judge Racoma asserted that the TROs he issued were grounded in Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, which permits ex parte issuance of a 20-day TRO when great or irreparable injury would result before the matter could be heard on notice, and that he had cited jurisprudence on the suspension of elected officials. He attributed any delay in complying with Administrative Order No. 63-2020 to inadvertence and heavy workload during the COVID-19 public health emergency, and contended that the administrative cases against him were part of a pattern of harassment by Governor Tallado and related officials, who filed administrative complaints instead of availing of judicial remedies. Judge Dating explained that Administrative Order No. 63-2020 was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court only on May 12, 2020, and that copies were distributed to the branches only when the court reopened on June 1, 2020, by which time a backlog had accumulated; it was only in February 2021 that the order was brought to his court's attention.

The OED reviewed the matter and disagreed with the OCA's finding of gross ignorance. It concluded that the propriety of the TRO issuances was judicial in nature, tied to the exercise of judicial discretion, and that the appropriate remedy for aggrieved parties was to avail of judicial remedies under the Rules of Court rather than file administrative complaints. The OED also found that the judges' belated compliance with Administrative Order No. 63-2020, while admitted, was not serious enough to warrant administrative sanction given their explanation of inadvertence during the public health emergency. The JIB concurred, further finding that Representative Tallado's request for judicial audit was not an isolated incident but connected to a series of administrative complaints filed against both judges by Governor Tallado and related individuals, and characterized the request as a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence the judges. The Court adopted the JIB's findings and recommendations in full.

• Duty to Constituents: Complainant maintained that she requested the judicial audit out of her duty to her constituents in Camarines Norte to ensure they were afforded an efficient and just judicial system, though she admitted she was not privy to the specifics of the allegations against the judges.
• Anomalous TRO Issuances: Complainant claimed she received reports of anomalous issuances of TROs by Judges Racoma and Dating and that certain cases were heard irrespective of jurisdiction.

• Judicial Basis for TRO Issuances: Judge Racoma argued that the TROs he issued were based on Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, which allows ex parte issuance of a 20-day TRO when great or irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard on notice, and that he cited relevant jurisprudence on the suspension of elected officials; he maintained the TROs were not issued indiscriminately or with malice, prejudice, or corruption.
• Inadvertence in Compliance: Judge Racoma asserted that any delay in compliance with Administrative Order No. 63-2020 was due to mere inadvertence and heavy workload during the COVID-19 public health emergency, not a willful disregard of the Court's directive.
• Harassment by Political Actors: Judge Racoma contended that the administrative cases against him, including the instant case, were filed by the same parties involved in the special civil actions where he issued the TROs, who resorted to administrative complaints instead of availing of judicial remedies under the Rules of Court, in deliberate concert to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence him.
• Late Receipt of Administrative Order: Judge Dating countered that Administrative Order No. 63-2020 was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court only on May 12, 2020, and copies were distributed to the branches only when the court reopened on June 1, 2020; it was only in February 2021 that the order was brought to his court's attention, overtaken by the COVID-19 public health emergency and physical closure of the courts.

• Administrative Liability for Adjudicative Acts: Whether the issuance of TROs by Judges Racoma and Dating, allegedly without conducting the required summary hearing, constitutes gross ignorance of the law or otherwise warrants administrative sanction.
• Administrative Liability for Noncompliance with AO 63-2020: Whether the judges' failure to timely comply with Administrative Order No. 63-2020 warrants administrative discipline.
• Harassment Suit and Contempt: Whether the request for judicial audit by Representative Tallado constitutes a harassment suit intended to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence the respondent judges, warranting contempt proceedings.

• Administrative Liability for Adjudicative Acts: No. The challenged TRO issuances pertained to the judges' adjudicative functions and must be assailed through judicial remedies, not administrative proceedings; absent evidence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice, no administrative liability attaches.
• Administrative Liability for Noncompliance with AO 63-2020: No. The judges' belated compliance with Administrative Order No. 63-2020, explained by inadvertence during the COVID-19 public health emergency and late receipt of the order, was not serious enough to warrant administrative sanction.
• Harassment Suit and Contempt: Yes. The request for judicial audit was a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence the judges, as evidenced by the existence of multiple prior administrative cases filed by the same or related complainants, the complainant's influential position and relationship to a party in the underlying cases, and the pattern of filing administrative complaints instead of availing of judicial remedies; the complainant was ordered to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt.

• Administrative Liability for Adjudicative Acts: The Court reiterated the established doctrine, as articulated in Mahinay vs. Judge Daomilas, Jr., that errors attributed to judges in the exercise of their adjudicative functions must be challenged in judicial proceedings, not in administrative cases. A judge cannot be held administratively, civilly, or criminally liable for official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided they act in good faith. Administrative sanctions attach only when judicial errors are tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice. A perusal of the orders issued by both judges showed that these were issued with factual and legal bases following relevant procedural rules. Judge Racoma consistently cited Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, which permits ex parte issuance of a 20-day TRO when great or irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard on notice, as well as jurisprudence on the suspension of elected officials. The OED correctly found that the propriety of the TRO issuances was judicial in nature, tied to the exercise of sound judicial discretion, and that the appropriate remedy for aggrieved parties was to file the available judicial remedies under the Rules of Court. No evidence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice was shown.

• Administrative Liability for Noncompliance with AO 63-2020: Both judges admitted their failure to comply with Administrative Order No. 63-2020 but explained that the delay was due to inadvertence during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Judge Dating further demonstrated that the order was received by the Office of the Clerk of Court only on May 12, 2020, and distributed to the branches only on June 1, 2020, with the order being brought to his court's attention only in February 2021. The OED found the belated compliance insufficient to warrant administrative sanction, and the JIB concurred. The Court adopted these findings, noting that the judges undertook to comply with the order and that the circumstances surrounding the delay were attributable to the public health emergency and logistical disruptions rather than willful disregard.

• Harassment Suit and Contempt: The Court applied the guidelines for determining whether a disciplinary case constitutes a harassment suit, as established in Tallado vs. Racoma: (a) the existence of other cases filed against the public respondent by the same or related complainants; (b) the position and influence of the complainant in the locality where the respondent is stationed; (c) the number of times the respondent has been charged administratively and the corresponding dispositions; (d) any decisions or judicial actions previously rendered by the respondent for or against the complainant; (e) the propensity of the complainant for filing administrative cases against members of the Judiciary; and (f) any other factor indicative of improper pressure or influence. Applying these factors, the Court found that Representative Tallado is the wife of Governor Tallado, a respondent in the underlying cases, making her an interested party; that she occupies a highly influential position as representative of the 1st District of Camarines Norte; and that multiple prior administrative cases had been filed against both judges by individuals related to the Tallados, in most of which the judges were absolved and the complainants were ordered to show cause for indirect contempt. The Court took judicial notice of Tallado vs. Racoma, Venida vs. Judge Dating, and Tallado vs. Judge Dating, all involving administrative complaints by Tallado-related individuals against the same judges. The Court agreed with the JIB that the request for judicial audit was a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence the judges, and directed Representative Tallado to show cause why she should not be cited for indirect contempt.

• Immunity of Judges for Adjudicative Acts — A judge cannot be subjected to civil, criminal, or administrative liability for official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided they act in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do injustice will be administratively sanctioned. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that the challenged TRO issuances were adjudicative acts supported by factual and legal bases, with no evidence of bad faith or corruption, and therefore could not be the subject of administrative proceedings.

• Harassment Suit Against Judges — A disciplinary case filed against a justice, judge, or court personnel may be characterized as a harassment suit when the following factors are present: (a) existence of other cases filed by the same or related complainants; (b) the position and influence of the complainant in the locality; (c) the number of times the respondent has been charged and the corresponding dispositions; (d) prior decisions or judicial actions rendered by the respondent for or against the complainant; (e) the complainant's propensity for filing administrative cases against Judiciary members; and (f) any other factor indicative of improper pressure or influence. The Court found all applicable factors present and held that the request for judicial audit was a pretext to harass the judges, warranting contempt proceedings against the complainant.

• Judicial Remedies as Proper Avenue for Challenging Adjudicative Errors — Errors in the exercise of adjudicative functions must be assailed through available judicial remedies under the Rules of Court, such as motions for reconsideration and petitions for certiorari, before administrative liability may be inquired into. It is only after judicial remedies have been exhausted and appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to inquiry into criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be opened or closed.

• "The Court has invariably ruled that the errors attributed to judges pertaining to the exercise of their adjudicative functions should be assailed in judicial proceedings instead of in a administrative case. Consistent with the Court's policy, a judge cannot be subjected to any liability — civil, criminal[,] or administrative — for any of [their] official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as [they act] in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty and corruption, gross ignorance, bad faith[,] or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned." — This passage, quoted from Mahinay vs. Judge Daomilas, Jr., states the controlling doctrine on judicial immunity for adjudicative acts and defines the threshold for administrative liability.

• "Our judges do not perform their judicial duties in a vacuum. They, like us, assume their role in society and, as such, necessarily interact and relate with other members of their communities." — This passage opens the Court's discussion in Tallado vs. Racoma on the pressures faced by judges from powerful local officials, contextualizing the harassment-suit framework.

• "unfounded criticisms against members of the Judiciary degrade the judicial office and greatly interfere with the due performance of their functions in the Judiciary." — This passage articulates the rationale for treating baseless administrative complaints as contemptuous conduct, emphasizing the institutional harm to the Judiciary.

• Mahinay vs. Judge Daomilas, Jr., 833 Phil. 310 (2018) — Controlling precedent cited for the doctrine that errors in adjudicative functions must be challenged through judicial remedies, not administrative proceedings, and that judges are immune from liability for official acts done in good faith.
• Tallado vs. Judge Racoma, 929 Phil. 40 (2022) — Controlling precedent establishing the six-factor guidelines for determining whether a disciplinary case against a judge constitutes a harassment suit; the Court took judicial notice of this case, which involved the same judge and complainants related to Governor Tallado.
• Venida vs. Judge Dating, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2458 (2020) — Followed; the Court took judicial notice of this case, which involved administrative complaints against both judges filed by an appointee of Governor Tallado, and where the Court found the complaint against Judge Racoma lacked merit as it involved a judicial matter.
• Ferrer vs. Judge Dating, 820 Phil. 547 (2017) — Referenced as the case in which Judge Dating had already been penalized for the same acts complained of in Venida, precluding further penalty.
• Tallado vs. Judge Dating, 929 Phil. 483 (2022) — Followed; the Court took judicial notice of this case, where the complaint against Judge Dating was dismissed and the complainants were ordered to show cause for indirect contempt for filing a premature harassment complaint.

• Section 5, Rule 58, Rules of Court — Governs the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions; cited by Judge Racoma as the basis for issuing ex parte 20-day TROs when great or irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard on notice. The Court found this citation demonstrated a legal basis for the TRO issuances, precluding a finding of gross ignorance.
• Administrative Circular No. 20-95 (Special Rules for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction) — Requires a summary hearing before a TRO may be issued, with the exception of extreme urgency cases where the Executive Judge may issue a 72-hour ex parte TRO. The OCA found Judge Racoma violated this circular, but the OED and the Court treated the issue as judicial in nature rather than administratively sanctionable.
• Administrative Order No. 63-2020 — Requires justices and judges to submit to the Office of the Chief Justice copies of TROs, status quo ante orders, and writs of preliminary injunction within five days of issuance, effective March 1, 2020. Both judges were found to have belatedly complied, but the Court held this was not serious enough to warrant administrative sanction given inadvertence and the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• Section 4, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court) — Provides that an administrative case against a judge may also be considered a disciplinary action against them as a member of the Philippine Bar, provided the complaint states that the imputed acts constitute violations of the Lawyer's Oath or the Code of Professional Responsibility. The OED cited this provision in directing the judges to show cause, but ultimately found no basis to hold them liable as members of the Bar.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Leonen, SAJ.; Caguioa; Hernando; Lazaro-Javier; Inting; Zalameda; M. Lopez; Gaerlan; J. Lopez; Dimaampao; and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred. Marquez, J., took no part. Singh, J., was on leave.