LACUROM V. JUDGE TIENZO (JUDICIAL CONDUCT, MEMORANDUM DECISIONS)

Indeed, as a matter of public policy, not every error or mistake committed by judges in the performance of their official duties renders them administratively liable. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, acts done in the ri official capacity, even though erroneous, do not always constitute misconduct.

Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice may be the subject of disciplinary actions. For administrative liability to attach, respondent judge must be shown to have moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other similar motive. Verify, judges may not be held administratively liable for any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as they acted in good faith.

However, SC finds respondent judge administratively liable for decision in civil case 4884.

the memorandum decision, to be valid, cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for direct access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the said decision. Simply put, the memorandum decision authorized under BP 129 should actually embody the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of the decision.

It is obvious that the decision rendered by the respondent judge failed to conform to this requirement. The cryptic decision simply referenced the appealed decision of the MTCC and forthwith found the same as compliant with procedural due process under the Rules of Summary Procedure. Ineluctably, respondent judge transgressed the constitutional directive.

Although not every judicial error signifies ignorance of the law which warrants administrative sanction, this holds true only in instances of tolerable misjudgment. Where however, an elementary constitutional mandate is violated, the blunder constituted IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.