A.M. No. RTJ-18-2536 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4396-RTJ) - GOV. EDGARDO A. TALLADO, COMPLAINANT, V. HON. WINSTON S. RACOMA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 39, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), DAET, CAMARINES NORTE.

Ruling

accordingly be fined in the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00). The OCA found that contrary to Tallado's allegations, Judge Racoma followed the standard procedure in hearing the injunction case filed by Ang. Judge Racoma issued a Notice of Hearing [29] dated April 23, 2015, which was received by Tallado. On the scheduled hearing, Tallado was able to manifest in open court that the application for TRO filed by Ang was already overtaken by events. The OCA held that contrary to his assertions, Tallado was given the opportunity to present his evidence in court. [30] While Tallado claimed that Judge Racoma issued the questioned TRO without any discussion on the basis of its issuance, the OCA observed that Judge Racoma gave his reasons for granting the TRO and cited jurisprudence to support his decision. [31] In view of Tallado's failure to establish the factual and legal basis for the charges against Judge Racoma, the OCA recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed. [32] The OCA however recommended that Judge Racoma be fined for his failure to file the required Comment as directed by the OCA, despite several opportunities given him. [33] The Court 's Ruling After a judicious examination of the records and submission of the parties, the Court upholds the findings and recommendation of the OCA. The OCA correctly observed that the records of the case readily show that Judge Racoma followed the standard procedure in hearing the injunction case filed by Ang. Judge Racoma also aptly explained his legal basis for granting the TRO in his Order dated April 23, 2015. Tallado claimed that Judge Racoma misapplied the jurisprudence he cited in the subject Order. [34] Not every error or mistake by a judge in the performance of his official duties however renders him administratively liable. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. [35] The Court has ruled that " no judge can be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, or incompetence in the adjudication of cases unless his acts constituted fraud, dishonesty or corruption; or were imbued with malice or ill-will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice ." [36] Additionally, the Court held in the case of Romero v. Judge Luna , [37] thus: As a matter of policy[,] "an administrative case is not the [proper] remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular." The administrative case cannot be used as a remedy to challenge the assailed order or decision rendered by the respondent judge nor cannot be used as a substitute for other judicial remedies. Errors committed by a judge in the exercise of adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should be assailed through judicial remedies. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door t