RUBEN N. SALCEDO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE GIL G. BOLLOZOS, Respondent. RESOLUTION BRION, J.

: We pass upon the verified Letter-Complaint, dated u!ust "#, "$$%, filed &' Ru&en N. Sal(edo )(omplainant*, (har!in! +ud!e ,il ,. -ollo.os )respondent /ud!e*, 0residin! +ud!e, Re!ional Trial Court, -ran(h "1, Ca!a'an de Oro Cit', 2ith ,rave 3is(ondu(t and I!noran(e of the La2 in the handlin! of S0EC. 0ROC. No. "$$%-$$#, entitled 4+ose Tanmala(5, +r., represented &' +o(el'n Tanmala(5 Tan v. 0oli(e Offi(ers of 0oli(e 0re(in(t No. 6, !ora, Lapasan, Ca!a'an 7e Oro Cit', and Insp. W'len Ro/o.4 T8E 9 CTU L - C:,ROUN7 The (omplaint arose from a verified handwritten petition for the Writ of 8a&eas Corpus and the Writ of A paro )the petition* filed &' Jo!e "an a#a$%, Jr. a!ainst the &o#i$e Offi$er! of 0oli(e 0re(in(t No. 6, !ora, Lapasan, Ca'a(an de Oro Cit(, and In!pe$tor )(#en Ro*o. The $o p#ainant a##e'ed that he i! a $o+owner of a par$e# of #and )disputed propert'* (overed &' Ori!inal Certifi(ate of Title No. O-;<$ and re!istered in the na e of &atri$io Sa#$edo. "he disputed propert' is a&out 1"=,11" s>uare meters 2ide and is situated in Lapasan, Ca!a'an de Oro Cit'. On +anuar' "6, "$$% at around "?6$ p.m., 2hile the $o p#ainant ,to'ether with hi! nie$e Re&e((a R. Lum&a' and his nephew lan +ose 0. Roa* 2as !-pervi!in' an on+'oin' $on!tr-$tion over the di!p-ted propert(, "an a#a$% and heavi#( ar ed en arrived and for$ed the !e#ve! in!ide the fen$ed pre i!e! of the di!p-ted propert(. The (omplainant averred that Tanmala(5 and his (ompanions hara!!ed and threatened to %i## and to har hi and hi! wor%er! @ that Tanmala(5 uttered defa ator( !tate ent! and a$$-!ed hi of #and+'ra..in'/ a nd that Tanmala(5 and his (ompanions o((upied the propert( and de!tro(ed .-i#din' ateria#! !-(h as ,.I. sheets, lum&er and other (onstru(tion materials. The (omplainant forth2ith reported the in(ident to the near&' poli(e station. The poli(e promptl' responded and arrested Tanmala(5 and &rou!ht him in for >uestionin!. That same afternoon at around <?<A p.m., Tanmala(5, represented &' his sister, +o(el'n Tanmala(5 Tan, filed the petition 1 on his &ehalf 2hile Tanmala(5 2as detained &' the poli(e for emplo'in! 4self-help in preventin! s>uatters from puttin! up improvements in their titled propert'.4 Cler5 of Court tt'. 8erlie Luis-Re>uerme narrated the (ir(umstan(es surroundin! the filin! of the petition and ho2 it (ame to &e referred to the respondent /ud!eBs sala, as follo2s? 1. In the late afternoon of +anuar' "6, "$$%, a >uer' 2as re(eived &' the Offi(e re!ardin! the pro(edure in filin! a petition for a Writ of mparo. We !ave the information that the esta&lished pro(edure is to assi!n (ases to the different &ran(hes &' rafflin! or in ur!ent (ases, &' a spe(ial raffle upon proper motions. -ut sin(e the offi(e has not re(eived an' (ase of that nature 'et, and as the s(hedule of rafflin! 2ill still &e in the afternoon of the neCt da', it 2ill &e referred to the ECe(utive +ud!e for instru(tion and or appropriate a(tion@ ". That sin(e the ECe(utive +ud!e 2as on leave, I 2ent to (onsult the 1st Di(e ECe(utive +ud!e Evel'n ,amotin Ner'. Sin(e +ud!e Ner' 2as &us' at that time, I 2ent to see "nd Di(e ECe(utive +ud!e 3a. nita Es!uerra-Lu(a!&o@ 6. That I (larified from +ud!e Lu(a!&o the pro(edure to &e adopted under the Rule on the Writ of mparo ) .3. No. $;#-1"-SC*@ <. That the issue if an' /ud!e (an immediatel' a(t on the petition 2as not (learl' stated in the Rule &ut if the (ase 2ill &e referred to her as the "nd Di(e ECe(utive +ud!e, she 2ill &e 2illin! to loo5 at the petition@ A. That 2hen I 2ent &a(5 at the Offi(e at a little past A?$$ 0.3. alread', dire(t from the (ham&er of +ud!e Lu(a!&o, I found out that a 0etition for Writ of mparo 2as filed at around <?<A 0.3. as stamped in the petition@ =. That sin(e I 2as out of the offi(e, the 7o(5et Cler5 in (har!e, 3r. Rud' EC(lamador, referred the (ase to the dministrative Offi(er 3ar' L'n Charisse La!amon@ ;. That thin5in! I 2as no lon!er around as the personnel to 2hom I left the information that I 2as !oin! to the sala of 1st Di(e ECe(utive +ud!e Ner' 2as not a&le to inform the dmin. Offi(er of m' 2herea&outs, 3r. EC(lamador 2as instru(ted &' her to refer the (ase to 'ou Ereferrin! to the respondent /ud!eF@

%. That upon learnin! of the fa(t, I immediatel' (alled 3r. EC(lamador and 3s. La!amon to eCplain 2h' the' referred the (ase to 'our sala 2ithout an' instru(tion from me@ #. That the' said that the' are of the honest &elief that I 2as no lon!er around@ that the la2'er 2as insistin! to refer the (ase immediatel' to a /ud!e sin(e it is alread' A?$$ 0.3. and (onsiderin! the novelt', ur!en(' and importan(e of the (ase, and fearin! that no /ud!e 2ill &e left to a(t on the petition if the' still dis(uss 2hat to do, 3r. EC(lamador, 2ith the (on(urren(e of dmin. Offi(er La!amon, referred the (ase to 'ou sin(e 'our sala 2as the nearest to our offi(e, it &ein! ad/a(ent to 'our (ourt@ 1$. That there is no&od' from this Offi(e 2ho &rou!ht the hand2ritten petition to +ud!e Lu(a!&o nor 2as there an' instru(tion from her to an' of the personnel to have the petition (onform to a form a((epta&le to the (ourt, su(h fa(t 2as (onfirmed &' +ud!e Lu(a!&o@ 11. That the offi(e onl' a(ted 2hat it deemed &est under the (ir(umstan(es and 2as not motivated &' an' ill motive or mali(e." Ba!ed on the petition and an!wer! to the $#arifi$ator( 0-e!tion! propo-nded to "an a#a$%1! repre!entative and $o-n!e#, the re!pondent *-d'e i ediate#( i!!-ed a )rit of A paro dated +anuar' "6, "$$%, dire$tin' 2the po#i$e offi$er! of A'ora &o#i$e Station 3 or In!p. )(#en Ro*o 4 4 4 to re#ea!e i ediate#( -pon re$eipt of 5the6 writ &ut not later than =?$$ 0.3. toda', petitioner +ose Tanmala(5, +r., to the (ustod' of tt'. 9ran(is D. :u.4 The respondent /ud!e also dire(ted the poli(e offi(ers to file their verified return to the petition 2ithin five )A* 2or5in! da's, to!ether 2ith supportin! affidavits, in (onformit' 2ith Se(tion # of the Rule on the Writ of mparo. round A?6$ p.m., the Writ of mparo 2as served upon S0O6 ener O. da/ar, 0N0 Chief Investi!ator. t siC oB(lo(5 in the evenin! of that same da', the poli(e released Tanmala(5 to the (ustod' of tt'. 9ran(is :u. In his (omplaint, the (omplainant >uestions the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo 2hi(h he (laims had &een unusuall' issued 2ith haste. The (omplainant (laims that the hand2ritten petition did not !ive an' !round to 2arrant the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo@ that the respondent /ud!e a(ted 2ith !rave a&use of dis(retion, &ias, and o&vious partialit', and in !rave disre!ard of the Rules and the rule of la2 2hen he a(ted upon and !ranted the letter-petition for the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo. The (omplainant also alle!es that the respondent /ud!e 4a((ommodated4 the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo &e(ause he and tt'. 9ran(is :u )Tanmala(5Bs (ounsel* are mem&ers of the 3asoni( fraternit'. The respondent /ud!e filed his Comment dated 3ar(h 6$, "$$#, in (omplian(e 2ith the dire(tive of the Offi(e of the Court dministrator )OC *. In his defense, he alle!ed? )a* EWFhen he re(eived the petition from the Offi(e of the Cler5 of Court, he had no option &ut to eCer(ise his /udi(ial dut' 2ithout an' &ias or partialit', nor did he (onsider that the petitionerBs (ounsel is a fraternal &rother )3ason*@ )&* E Flthou!h the petition is for the issuan(e of &oth 2rit of amparo and 2rit of ha&eas (orpus, he deemed it more in (onsonan(e 2ith the ERule on the Writ of mparoF@ )(* EIFt 2as not improper even if the C C C petition 2as not raffled, and 2as immediatel' assi!ned to his sala &' the Offi(e of the Cler5 of Court, sin(e 0ar. ", Se(. 6 of .3. No. $;-#-1"-SC states that an' /ud!e of a Re!ional Trial Court )RTC* (an issue a 2rit and the said Se(. 6 further states that it (an &e filed on an' da' and at an' time@ )d* ETFhe person 2ho filed the petition is the sister of 3r. Tanmala(5 2ho 2as detained at the !ora 0oli(e Station, Ca!a'an de Oro Cit'@ that the issuan(e of the 2rit 2as a matter of !reat ur!en(' &e(ause the alle!ed ille!al deprivation of li&ert' 2as made in the late afternoon of +anuar' "6, "$$%, 2hi(h 2as a 9rida', and that if the Court 2ould not a(t on the petition, the detainee 2ould (ertainl' spend the ni!ht in /ail@ )e* ETFhe petition, althou!h in hand2ritten form, is not improper &e(ause Se(tion A of the SC Cir(ular )on the Writ of mparo* onl' re>uires that the same &e si!ned and verified@ that he found the petition suffi(ient in form and in su&stan(e@ )f* E Flthou!h the mparo rules mandate that a /ud!e shall immediatel' order the issuan(e of the 2rit if on its fa(e it ou!ht to issue, he propounded (larifi(ator' >uestions on the petitionerBs representative and their (ounsel, thus, the follo2in! information 2ere eli(ited? 1* That the propert' of petitionerBs famil', 2hi(h is under their possession and Tanmala(5 re!istered under TCT No. T-1=";<#1, 2as intruded &' some persons 2ho 2anted to fen(e the area and put up improvements &' (onstru(tin! 4shanties4 thereon@

"* That 2hen petitioner 3r. Tanmala(5 prevented the intrusion it resulted to heated ar!uments and alter(ations 2hi(h prompted him to !o to the poli(e station to report the in(ident and &e &lottered@ 6* That 2hen 3r. Tanmala(5 arrived at the poli(e station in the late afternoon of +anuar' "6, "$$% in order to air his (omplaint, the intruders (ame and introdu(ed themselves as the o2ners of the propert'@ <* That 2hen 0oli(e Offi(er Ro/o )Ro/o* heard the version of these intruders and despite the protestations of petitioner and his relatives, the poli(e did not an'more allo2 3r. Tanmala(5 to leave the poli(e station@ and, A* That petitionerBs (ounsel (alled up Ro/o to se(ure the immediate release of his (lient from poli(e (ustod' &ut to no avail@ )!* E Ffter he assiduousl' evaluated the aforestated fa(ts, as 2ell as the alle!ations in the petition, respondent +ud!e, in the eCer(ise of his /udi(ial fun(tion, found that the same 2arranted the issuan(e of the 2rit@ the arrest of 3r. Tanmala(5 2as unla2ful &e(ause Ro/o 2as not present in the area 2here the alle!ed in(ident happened, so that the statements of the (omplainants )Sal(edo, Lum&a' and Roa* 2ould &e hearsa'@ )h* EIFn the Writ of mparo the respondents 2ere dire(ted to file a verified return pursuant to the rules@ durin! the summar' hearin! of the petition on "A +anuar' "$$%, it 2as onl' Ro/o 2ho appeared, the alle!ed (omplainants )Sal(edo, Lum&a' and Roa* 2ho (aused the detention of the petitioner 2ere a&sent@ 0GInsp. Ro/o, 2hen as5ed &' the Court, !ave the follo2in! ans2ers? 1* That he 2ould no lon!er file his ns2er )2hi(h should &e a verified return* on the (omplaint (onsiderin! that the petitioner 2as alread' released@ "* That he (onfirmed that it 2as the petitioner 2ho (ame first to the poli(e station to (omplain, follo2ed &' the person 2ho 2anted to fen(e the propert'@ the (onfli(t &et2een the petitioner and the other persons is on a propert' dispute, of 2hi(h it 2as petitioner 2ho is in possession@ and 6* That he denied that he had arrested the petitioner and neither did he detain him &ut onl' he (ould not release the petitioner &e(ause of the (omplaint and for further evaluation. )i* E8Fe noted that the poli(e &lotter did not state that petitioner &rou!ht heavil' armed men 2ith him 2hen he alle!edl' harassed the (omplainant. E)/* That in the summar' hearin! on +anuar' "A, "$$%, the petitioner as 2ell as the respondent Ro/o have arrived into an a!reement that the 2rit &e (onsidered permanent.F T8E RE0ORT O9 T8E OC The OC informed the Court that the (ase 2as alread' ripe for resolution in a Report dated pril %, "$1$, si!ned &' Court dministrator +ose 3idas 0. 3ar>ue. and 7eput' Court dministrator Raul -autista Dillanueva. The Report li5e2ise presented a &rief fa(tual &a(5!round of the (ase. The OC re(ommended that the administrative $o p#aint a'ain!t the re!pondent *-d'e .e di! i!!ed for #a$% of re(ommendation 2as &ased on an evaluation 2hi(h reads? ED LU TION? The (omplaint is &ereft of merit. The petition for a 2rit of amparo is a remed' availa&le to an' person 2hose ri!ht to life, li&ert' and se(urit' is violated or threatened 2ith violation &' an unla2ful a(t or omission of a pu&li( offi(ial or emplo'ee, as in the instant (ase, or of a private individual or entit'. Whereas in other /urisdi(tions the 2rit (overs onl' a(tual violations, the &hi#ippine ver!ion i! ore prote$tive of the ri'ht to #ife, #i.ert( and !e$-rit( .e$a-!e it $over! .oth a$t-a# and threatened vio#ation! of !-$h ri'ht!. No2here in the re(ords of the instant (omplaint that the issuan(e of the 2rit of amparo 2as attended &' irre!ularities. The detaineeBs sister 2ho filed the petition is allo2ed under Se(tion ")&* of the Rule on the Writ of mparo )SC .3. No. $;-#-1"SC*. lso, the petition 2as properl' filed 2ith the Re!ional Trial Court 42here the a(t or omission 2as (ommitted or 2here an' of its elements o((urred.4 Respondent +ud!e, in 2hose sala the said petition 2as assi!ned is deemed to have (omplied 2ith his oath and /udi(ial dut' 2hen he ordered the issuan(e of the 2rit of amparo upon determination that the ri!ht to li&ert' of 3r. Tanmala(5 2as &ein! erit . The

violated or threatened to &e violated. These is no sho2in! that respondent +ud!e, in !rantin! the petition for a 2rit of amparo 2as motivated &' &ad faith, i!nomin' or ill 2ill, thus, herein (omplainantBs alle!ation that respondent +ud!eBs a(t 2as tainted 2ith !rave a&use of dis(retion and authorit', &ias and partialit', and !rave disre!ard of the rules, deserves s(ant (onsideration. This Offi(e a!rees 2ith respondent +ud!eBs o&servation that 4Ro/oBs de(laration not an'more to (ontest the petition and that he )Ro/o* did not arrest nor detain petitioner, &ut admitted that he (ould not release the latter for further evaluation &e(ause of the (omplaint is an admission that he deprived Eor threatened to depriveF +ose E7' Tanmala(5F of his li&ert'.4 issue

Won the 2rit of amparo ma' &e filed &' the sister of the prisoner Won the rt( has /urisdi(tion NO
OUR RULIN, We (on(ur 2ith the OC Bs re(ommendation that the administrative (omplaint a!ainst the respondent /ud!e &e dismissed for la(5 of merit. t the outset, we a'ree with the $o p#ainant that the re!pondent *-d'e erred in i!!-in' the )rit of A paro in "an a#a$%1! favor. 8ad he read Se(tion 1 of the Rule on the Writ of mparo more (losel', the respondent /ud!e 2ould have reali.ed that the 2rit, in its present form, onl' applies to 4eCtrale!al 5illin!s and enfor(ed disappearan(es or threats thereof.46 "he pre!ent $a!e invo#ve! $on$ern! that are p-re#( propert( and $o er$ia# in nat-re 7 $on$ern! that we have previo-!#( r-#ed are not $overed .( the )rit of A paro. < In Tapu. v. 7el Rosario,A 2e held? To start off 2ith the &asi(s, the 2rit of amparo 2as ori!inall' (on(eived as a response to the eCtraordinar' rise in the num&er of 5illin!s and enfor(ed disappearan(es, and to the per(eived la(5 of availa&le and effe(tive remedies to address these eCtraordinar' (on(erns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the ri!hts to life, li&ert' or se(urit', as an eCtraordinar' and independent remed' &e'ond those availa&le under the prevailin! Rules, or as a remed' supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a 2rit to prote(t (on(erns that are purel' propert' or (ommer(ial. Neither is it a 2rit that 2e shall issue on amorphous and un(ertain !rounds. Conse>uentl', the Rule on the Writ of mparo H in line 2ith the eCtraordinar' (hara(ter of the 2rit and the reasona&le (ertaint' that its issuan(e demands H re>uires that ever' petition for the issuan(e of the 2rit must &e supported &' /ustif'in! alle!ations of fa(t, to 2it? 4)a* The personal (ir(umstan(es of the petitioner@ )&* The name and personal (ir(umstan(es of the respondent responsi&le for the threat, a(t or omission, or, if the name is un5no2n or un(ertain, the respondent ma' &e des(ri&ed &' an assumed appellation@ (c) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits@ (d) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report@ )e* The a(tions and re(ourses ta5en &' the petitioner to determine the fate or 2herea&outs of the a!!rieved part' and the identit' of the person responsi&le for the threat, a(t or omission@ and )f* The relief pra'ed for. The petition ma' in(lude a !eneral pra'er for other /ust and e>uita&le reliefs.4 The 2rit shall issue if the Court is preliminaril' satisfied 2ith the pri a fa$ie e4i!ten$e of the -#ti ate fa$t! deter ina.#e fro the !-pportin' affidavit! that detai# the $ir$- !tan$e! of how and to what e4tent a threat to or vio#ation of the ri'ht! to #ife, #i.ert( and !e$-rit( of the a''rieved part( wa! or i! .ein' $o itted. In the present (ase, the Writ of mparo ou!ht not to have &een issued &' the respondent /ud!e sin(e "an a#a$%1! petition i! fata##( defe$tive in !-.!tan$e and $ontent, a! it doe! not a##e'e that he i! a vi$ti of 2e4tra#e'a# %i##in'! and enfor$ed

di!appearan$e! or the threat! thereof.2 The petition merel' states that he is 4under threat of deprivation of li&ert' 2ith the poli(e statin! that he is not arrested &ut merel' Iin (ustod'.B4 = Whether the respondent /ud!e (ould &e held administrativel' lia&le for the error he (ommitted in the present (ase, is, ho2ever, a >uestion 2e must ans2er in the ne!ative. 0lainl', the errors attri&uted to respondent /ud!e pertain to the eCer(ise of his ad/udi(ative fun(tions. s a matter of poli(', in the a&sen(e of fraud, dishonest', and (orruption, the a(ts of a /ud!e in his offi(ial (apa(it' are not su&/e(t to dis(iplinar' a(tion. 8e (annot &e su&/e(ted to lia&ilit' H (ivil, (riminal, or administrative H for an' of his offi(ial a(ts, no matter ho2 erroneous, as lon! as he a(ts in !ood faith. Onl' /udi(ial errors tainted 2ith fraud, dishonest', !ross i!noran(e, &ad faith, or deli&erate intent to do an in/usti(e 2ill &e administrativel' san(tioned. Settled is the rule that errors (ommitted &' a /ud!e in the eCer(ise of his ad/udi(ative fun(tions (annot &e (orre(ted throu!h administrative pro(eedin!s, &ut should instead &e assailed throu!h /udi(ial remedies.; In the present (ase, the propriet' of the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo (annot &e raised as an issue in the present administrative (ase. The proper re(ourse for the (omplainant should have &een to file an appeal, from the final /ud!ment or order of the respondent /ud!e, to this Court under Rule <A of the Rules of Court, pursuant to Se(tion 1# of the Rule on the Writ of mparo. In Bello III v. Diaz,% 2e reiterated that dis(iplinar' pro(eedin!s a!ainst /ud!es do not (omplement, supplement, or su&stitute /udi(ial remedies, 2hether ordinar' or eCtraordinar'@ an in>uir' into their administrative lia&ilit' arisin! from /udi(ial a(ts ma' &e made onl' after other availa&le remedies have &een settled. We laid do2n the rationale for the rule in Flores v. Abesamis,# vi.? s ever'one 5no2s, the la2 provides ample /udi(ial remedies a!ainst errors or irre!ularities &ein! (ommitted &' a Trial Court in the eCer(ise of its /urisdi(tion. The ordinar' remedies a!ainst errors or irre!ularities 2hi(h ma' &e re!arded as normal in nature )i.e., error in appre(iation or admission of eviden(e, or in (onstru(tion or appli(ation of pro(edural or su&stantive la2 or le!al prin(iple* in(lude a motion for re(onsideration )or after rendition of a /ud!ment or final order, a motion for ne2 trial*, and appeal. The eCtraordinar' remedies a!ainst error or irre!ularities 2hi(h ma' &e deemed eCtraordinar' in (hara(ter )i.e., 2himsi(al, (apri(ious, despoti( eCer(ise of po2er or ne!le(t of dut', et(.* are, inter alia the spe(ial (ivil a(tions of certiorari, prohi&ition or mandamus, or a motion for inhi&ition, a petition for (han!e of venue, as the (ase ma' &e. No2, the esta&lished do(trine and poli(' is that dis(iplinar' pro(eedin!s and (riminal a(tions a!ainst +ud!es are not (omplementar' or suppletor' of, nor a su&stitute for, these /udi(ial remedies, 2hether ordinar' or eCtraordinar'. Resort to and eChaustion of these /udi(ial remedies, as 2ell as the entr' of /ud!ment in the (orrespondin! a(tion or pro(eedin!, are prere>uisites for the ta5in! of other measures a!ainst the persons of the /ud!es (on(erned, 2hether of (ivil, administrative, or (riminal nature. It is onl' after the availa&le /udi(ial remedies have &een eChausted and the appellate tri&unals have spo5en 2ith finalit', that the door to an in>uir' into his (riminal, (ivil, or administrative lia&ilit' ma' &e said to have opened, or (losed.
1avvphi1

9lores resorted to administrative prose(ution )or institution of (riminal a(tions* as a su&stitute for or supplement to the spe(ifi( modes of appeal or revie2 provided &' la2 from (ourt /ud!ments or orders, on the theor' that the +ud!esB orders had (aused him 4undue in/ur'.4 This is impermissi&le, as this Court has alread' more than on(e ruled. La2 and lo!i( de(ree that 4administrative or (riminal remedies are neither alternative nor (umulative to /udi(ial revie2 2here su(h revie2 is availa&le, and must 2ait on the result thereof.4 Indeed, sin(e /ud!es must &e free to /ud!e, 2ithout pressure or influen(e from eCternal for(es or fa(tors, the' should not &e su&/e(t to intimidation, the fear of (ivil, (riminal or administrative san(tions for a(ts the' ma' do and dispositions the' ma' ma5e in the performan(e of their duties and fun(tions@ and it is sound rule, 2hi(h must &e re(o!ni.ed independentl' of statute, that /ud!es are not !enerall' lia&le for a(ts done 2ithin the s(ope of their /urisdi(tion and in !ood faith@ and that eC(eptionall', pro!e$-tion of the *-d'e $an .e had on#( if 2there .e a fina# de$#aration .( a $o petent $o-rt in !o e appropriate pro$eedin' of the anife!t#( -n*-!t $hara$ter of the $ha##en'ed *-d' ent or order, and 88 a#!o eviden$e of a#i$e or .ad faith, i'noran$e or ine4$-!a.#e ne'#i'en$e, on the part of the *-d'e in renderin' !aid *-d' ent or order2 or -nder the !trin'ent $ir$- !tan$e! !et o-t in Arti$#e 39 of the Civi# Code .1$ We note, too, that althou!h the respondent /ud!e erred in issuin! the Writ of mparo, 2e find, as the OC did, that there is no eviden(e on re(ord that supports the (omplainantBs alle!ation that the issuan(e 2as tainted 2ith manifest &ias and partialit', &ad faith, or !ross i!noran(e of the la2. The fa(t that the respondent /ud!e and tt'. 9ran(is :u are mem&ers of the 3asoni( fraternit' does not /ustif' or prove that the former a(ted 2ith &ias and partialit'. -ias and partialit' (an never &e presumed and must &e proved 2ith (lear and (onvin(in! eviden(e. While palpa&le error ma' &e inferred from respondent /ud!eBs issuan(e of the Writ of mparo, there is no eviden(e on re(ord that 2ould /ustif' a findin! of partialit' or &ias. The (omplainantBs alle!ation of partialit' 2ill not suffi(e in the a&sen(e of a (lear and (onvin(in! proof that 2ill over(ome the presumption that the respondent /ud!e dispensed /usti(e a((ordin! to la2 and eviden(e, 2ithout fear or favor. 11 Li5e2ise, &ad faith or mali(e (annot &e inferred simpl' &e(ause the /ud!ment is adverse to a part'. To hold a /ud!e administrativel' a((ounta&le simpl' &e(ause he erred in his /ud!ment has never &een the intent of the la2@ reasona&le (ompeten(e and !ood faith /ud!ments, not (omplete infalli&ilit', are 2hat the la2 re>uires.

The more si!nifi(ant issue in this (ase is the (omplainantBs (har!e of !ross i!noran(e of the la2 a!ainst the respondent /ud!e. patent disre!ard of simple, elementar' and 2ell-5no2n rules (onstitutes !ross i!noran(e of the la2. +ud!es are eCpe(ted to eChi&it more than /ust (ursor' a(>uaintan(e 2ith la2s and pro(edural rules. The' must 5no2 the la2 and appl' it properl' in !ood faith. The' are li5e2ise eCpe(ted to 5eep a&reast of prevailin! /urispruden(e. 9or, a /ud!e 2ho is plainl' i!norant of the la2 taints the no&le offi(e and !reat privile!e vested in him. 1" We find that the respondent /ud!eBs error does not rise to the level of !ross i!noran(e of the la2 that is defined &' /urispruden(e. )e ta%e *-di$ia# noti$e of the fa$t that at the ti e he i!!-ed the )rit of A paro on Jan-ar( 93, 9::;, the R-#e on the )rit of A paro ha! .een effe$tive for .are#( three onth! )The Rule on the Writ of mparo &e(ame effe(tive on O(to&er "<, "$$;*. At that ti e, the re!pondent *-d'e $annot .e !aid to have .een f-##( ed-$ated and infor ed on the nove# a!pe$t! of the )rit of A paro. Simpl' stated, the R-#e on the )rit of A paro at that ti e $annot .e !aid to .e a !i p#e, e#e entar(, and we##+%nown r-#e that it! patent di!re'ard wo-#d $on!tit-te 'ro!! i'noran$e of the #aw. 3ore importantl', for full lia&ilit' to atta(h for i!noran(e of the la2, the assailed order, de(ision or a(tuation of the /ud!e in the performan(e of offi(ial duties must not onl' &e found to &e erroneous@ it must &e esta&lished that he 2as motivated &' &ad faith, dishonest', hatred or some other similar motive. 16 In the present (ase, the (omplainant failed to prove &' su&stantial eviden(e that the respondent /ud!e 2as motivated &' &ad faith and &ias or partialit' in the issuan(e of the Writ of mparo. We ta5e this o((asion, ho2ever, to remind the respondent /ud!e that under Canon 1.$1 of the Code of +udi(ial Condu(t, a /ud!e must &e 4the em&odiment of (ompeten(e, inte!rit' and independen(e.4 /ud!e is (alled upon to eChi&it more than /ust a (ursor' a(>uaintan(e 2ith statutes and pro(edural rules@ it is imperative that he &e (onversant 2ith &asi( le!al prin(iples and &e a2are of 2ell-settled authoritative do(trines. 8e o2es to the pu&li( and to this Court the dut' to &e profi(ient in the la2. 8e is eCpe(ted to 5eep a&reast of la2s and prevailin! /urispruden(e. +ud!es must not onl' render /ust, (orre(t, and impartial de(isions, resolutions, and orders, &ut must do so in a manner free of an' suspi(ion as to their fairness, impartialit', and inte!rit', for !ood /ud!es are men 2ho have master' of the prin(iples of la2 and 2ho dis(har!e their duties in a((ordan(e 2ith la2. 1< We mentioned all these to emphasi.e to the respondent /ud!e the need to &e more /udi(ious and (ir(umspe(t in the issuan(e of eCtraordinar' 2rits su(h as the Writ of mparo. )e a#!o reiterate that in an ad ini!trative pro$eedin', the $o p#ainant ha! the .-rden of provin' the a##e'ation! in the $o p#aint .( !-.!tantia# eviden$e.<= )e $annot 'ive $reden$e to $har'e! .a!ed on ere !-!pi$ion or !pe$-#ation. >en$e, when the $o p#ainant re#ie! on ere $on*e$t-re! and !-ppo!ition!, and fai#! to !-.!tantiate hi! $#ai , a! in thi! $a!e, the ad ini!trative $o p#aint -!t .e di! i!!ed for #a$% of erit. <? W8ERE9ORE, in vie2 of the fore!oin!, the Court RESOLDES to 7IS3ISS the administrative (omplaint a!ainst +ud!e ,il ,. -ollo.os, 0residin! +ud!e, Re!ional Trial Court, -ran(h "1, Ca!a'an de Oro Cit', for la(5 of merit. SO OR7ERE7.