A.M. No. CA-05-43 (A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-72-CA-J) - RAFAEL RONDINA, ROLAND GERON, ARTURO ORTEGA, BERNARDO RAMOS, ROBIN ROBIN RONDINA AND DANILO ABARAO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ELOY R. BELLO, JR., COURT OF APPEALS.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. Thus, the Court has held that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper. [9] Consequently, the filing of charges of misconduct and unethical behavior against a single member of the appellate court, in this case Justice Bello, is inappropriate. Contrary to the allegations of the complainants, Section 5, [10] Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provide the instances where a temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte , without need of hearings. Furthermore, a careful perusal of the records failed to indicate any improper motive on the part of Justice Bello and the concurring Justices when they rendered the assailed resolution. As a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts may be erroneous, provided he acts in good faith and without malice. [11] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge can find refuge. Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice; [12] hence, the failure to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render a judge administratively liable. [13] Indeed, magistrates are not expected to be infallible in their judgments. [14] To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous rule or decision rendered would be nothing short of harassment and would make the position doubly unbearable. To hold, otherwise, would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administration of justice can be infallible in his judgment. [15] The Court, likewise, stresses that an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty. [16] CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING , the administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.