462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog Adm. Matter No. R-351-RTJ. September 26, 1986. * ABRAHAM L. RAMIREZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG, respondent. Adm. Matter No. R-359-RTJ. September 26, 1986. * LIWAYWAY B. SAMSON, complainant, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG, respondent Adm. Matter No. R-621-RTJ. September 26, 1986. * VICTORIA TORRES, complainant, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG, respondent. Adm. Matter No. R-684-RTJ. September 26, 1986. * ESPERANZA LAZARO, complainant, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZ-MACANDOG, respondent. Adm. Matter No. R-687-RTJ. September 26, 1986. * JESUS ALBA, complainant, vs. HON. ANTONIA CORPUZMACANDOG, respondent. Adm. Matter No. 86-4-9987-RTC. September 26, 1986. * DESIGNATION OF AN ACTING JUDGE IN BRANCH CXXI, RTC, CALOOCAN CITY. Judges, Evidence; A judge cannot be held liable administratively for errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless it is so gross or made in bad faith. —Similarly, in the case of Vda. de Zabal vs. Pamaran , 39 SCRA 430, this Court had the
occasion to pronounce that “mere errors in the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an influence of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision [which circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar], are irrelevant and immaterial in an administrative proceeding against him.” We further stated: “If in the _______________ * EN BANC. 463 VOL. 144, SEPTEMBER 26, 1986 463 Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandog mind of the respondent the evidence for the defense was entitled to more weight and credence, he cannot be held to account administratively for the result of ratiocination.” Same; Judgments; Criminal Procedure; No rule requires a judge to notify a complainant of the date of promulgation of a judgment in a criminal case. —Neither could respondent be held administratively liable for failing to notify complainant of the promulgation of the decision in said criminal case. While it may be the better practice to notify the offended party of such promulgation, the Rules of Court do not require a judge to do so. Same; Same; Same; Sheriffs; A judge should not order the arrest of a sheriff for executing the orders of another judge of equal rank, for not obeying the former’s writ of injunction to stay implementation of the latter’s writ of execution.— To our mind, both orders of arrest were improvidently issued. Respondent judge should have been aware that forcible entry and detainer cases do not interfere with a proceeding where ownership is at issue. Thus, in Petargue v. Sorilla, 92 Phil. 5, it was held that “the determination of the respective right of rival claimants to public land is different from the determination of who has the actual physical possession or occupation with a view to protecting the same and preventing disorder and breaches of the peace. A judgment of the court ordering restitution of the possession of a parcel of land to the actual occupant, who has
been deprived thereof by another through the use of force or in any illegal manner, can never be ‘prejudicial interference’ with the disposition or alienation of public land.” Besides, in the case
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 22 pages?
- Summer '19
- Complaint, Appellate court, Injunction, deputy sheriff Ramirez