Facts: Complainant, as losing mayoral candidate for the Municipality of Daraga, Albay, in the May 11, 1998 local elections, filed a petition, dated May 22, 1998, denominated as an ‘election protest and/or revision/recounting of votes,’ on the ground that fraud and anomalies were allegedly committed during the aforesaid local elections, both in the course of voting and during the counting and tabulation of the ballots, to his prejudice. He prayed for the issuance of an order directing the revision or recounting of the ballots in the contested 114 precincts as enumerated in his petition, the nullification and setting aside of the proclamation of Wilson Andes as mayor, and his own proclamation as mayor.
Respondent judge, despite being apprised of the relevant law, consistently and unjustly refused to order a recount of all of the contested boxes and ballots. Respondent judge based her order on a repealed law.
Issue: Whether or not the judge should be made liable for the erroneous decision.
Held: Yes. Indeed, as models of competence, integrity and independence, judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, they are expected to keep abreast of all laws, legal principles and prevailing jurisprudence and to remain conversant with them. Everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less. Ignorance of the law excuses no one -- least of all, a judge.
Thus, judges may be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law when it is shown that -- motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption -- they ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence.
0 comments:
Post a Comment