Judicial Conduct: Upholding Impartiality and Temperance On and Off the Bench

Judges decide under a microscope. Every order may be appealed, questioned, or turned into an administrative charge. In Opis v. Judge Dimaano (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1942, July 28, 2005), the Supreme Court drew the line between a judge's judicial error and conduct serious enough to warrant administrative sanction — and dismissed the complaint.

The dispute over a cockpit franchise

The case began with a cockpit franchise in Torrijos, Marinduque. The municipality awarded the franchise to Gregorio Red through Municipal Ordinance No. 87-2000. Another applicant, Romulo del Mundo, went to the Regional Trial Court of Boac, Marinduque, filing Civil Case No. 00-5 to annul the ordinance and stop the franchise from being implemented.

Red's counsel, Atty. Restituto L. Opis, later complained that then Judge Rodolfo B. Dimaano issued a temporary restraining order against his client just as a cockpit derby for the town fiesta was scheduled — an act he described as intentionally timed. He also alleged that the judge retaliated against him by inhibiting himself from 31 cases the lawyer was handling, that one of the lawyer's own cases had not been acted upon, and that the judge was a habitual absentee every Monday and Thursday.

The charges and the findings

The complaint alleged gross inefficiency, serious misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion. An investigating justice of the Court of Appeals reviewed the matter and found none of the charges supported.

On the restraining order, the investigation found no fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith, and no indication of arbitrariness or deliberate injustice. The required notice and summary hearing were given to the parties, who had ample opportunity to present evidence. Whether the judge correctly appreciated the evidence was beside the point; he acted on an honest assessment of the record. The accusation of deliberate timing, the investigator noted, was never raised during the TRO hearing and appeared to be an afterthought.

On absenteeism, the complainant offered only a bare allegation and a court certification that no hearings were held on Mondays and Fridays. That hearings were not conducted on those days did not prove the judge was absent from his sala. The Supreme Court agreed that the charge was unsubstantiated.

Judicial error versus administrative liability

The Court restated a settled rule: an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for every erroneous order or decision where a judicial remedy — a motion for reconsideration or an appeal — is available. To hold a judge administratively liable for bias, there must be acts clearly showing arbitrariness or prejudice; mere suspicion is not enough. Only judicial