A.M. No. RTJ-25-084 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-086-RTJ] - HON. JOSEFINA B. TALLADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE WINSTON S. RACOMA, BRANCH 39, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, AND PRESIDING JUDGE ARNIEL A. DATING, BRANCH 41, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE.D E C I S I O N -

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, the Judicial Integrity Board respectfully RECOMMENDS to the Honorable Supreme Court that the instant complaint against former Presiding Judge Winston S. Racoma, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines Norte, and Presiding Judge Arniel A. Dating, Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines Norte be DISMISSED for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit. [38] (Emphasis in the original) The JIB averred that judicial remedies are available to question the alleged anomalous issuances of TROs, and that the aggrieved parties are not prevented from filing a motion for reconsideration and later, if warranted, they can file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. [39] The JIB also averred that Representative Tallado has not shown any evidence that Judges Racoma and Dating were impelled by malice, bad faith, or less than good intention or motive in issuing the assailed Orders. [40] The JIB further found that Representative Tallado's request for judicial audit of respondents' respective branches is a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence them: Moreover, it appears that the request by Representative Tallado for judicial audit, specifically of branches presided by respondent Judges Racoma and Dating, is not an isolated incident. It is connected with the other administrative cases successively filed against respondent Judges by the incumbent and/or former public officials of the province of Camarines Norte, led by former Governor Tallado. Representative Tallado's request for judicial audit and the filing of several administrative complaints against respondent Judges instead of availing judicial remedies is but a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence them. Certainly, the entire context of the administrative case should be considered. This administrative matter is one of those cases identified by the Supreme Court in Tallado v. Racoma to have been filed by powerful individuals who assumed to wield great power and influence in respondents' place of work. . . . . Indeed, Representative Tallado's request for judicial audit, specifically of the branches presided by the respondent Judges who allegedly issued anomalous TROs, is a mere pretext that it was her duty to her constituents. [41] The Court's Ruling After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds the recommendation of the JIB well-taken. It cannot be denied that Representative Tallado is attributing errors pertaining to Judge Racoma and Judge Dating's adjudicative functions, which are not the proper subject of an administrative case. Time and again, the Court has consistently held that errors attributed to judges pertaining to the exercise of their adjudicative functions should be assailed in judicial proceedings instead of in an administrative case. As reiterated in Mahinay vs. Judge Daomilas, Jr. : [42] The Court has invariably ruled that the errors attributed to judges pertaining to the exercise of their adjudicative fun