0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
110 Ansichten1 Seite
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption FACTS: Complainant Mercedes Duduaco charged respondent judge with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office and/or gross ignorance of the law. This case stemmed from the motor vehicle of the respondent judge being repaired by the Toyota shop, wherein herein complainant is the manager, wherein respondent judge refused to pay the cost of the repair and instead told that it will be the insurance that will pay the cost. Complainant claimed that respondent judge has a heated argument with the Service Department Manager and shouted that she was a judge. Respondent judge asked for a demand letter and upon presentation thereof, she paid the deductible franchise stated therein under protest. Respondent judge left the shop without the car, later on she filed case for Replevin. The report of the Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit, insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt. He observed that respondents refusal to pay the deductible franchise was not intended to violate the law. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the findings of the investigating officer. The OCA ruled that complainants insistence on pursuing her unsubstantiated charges despite lack of personal knowledge wasted the timed and resources not only of respondent but also of the Investigating Justice and the Supreme Court. ISSUE: Whether Judge Laquindanum is liable for gross ignorance of the law RULING: No. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and corruption. On the other hand, misconduct is any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Respondents refusal to pay the deductible franchise was justified. Her insistence that the demand to pay be in writing, together with her refusal to affix her signature in the blank form, did not amount to grave misconduct, abuse of judicial office or gross ignorance of the law. She was only exercising her legal right. Had respondent signed the blank form, she would be deemed to have waived her earlier protest and would have lost the right to claim for refund.