l\epubltc of tbe ~btltpptne~

~upreme Qr:ourt
efflet of tbt QCourt !llbmini~trator
:manila

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 264-2022

TO ALL JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL OF THE

FIRST AND SECOND LEVEL COURTS

SUBJECT: The Supreme Court's Ruling in A.M No. RTJ-22-022

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 19-4966-RTJ]

On 23 August 2022, the Court En Bane, speaking through

Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, promulgated its Decision in
A.M No. RTJ-22-022 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 19-4966-RTJ], entitled
Governor Edgardo A. Tallado, et al., vs. Hon. Winston S. Racoma,
Presiding Judge, Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines
Norte. To highlight, the Court considered the filing by the complainants,
who are influential elective officials, of the instant administrative case as
unscrupulous and a form of harassment on respondent judge, wherein
"not even the [Code of Judicial Conduct] can protect [the judge] from the
hardships occasioned by discordant and moreso openly adversarial
relations with the said officials."

Thus, in acknowledging that judges regularly face and live with

this unhealthy environment, day in and day out, and in order "to
safeguard against abuse of administrative disciplinary mechanism against
justices, judges, and court personnel," the Court unanimously enunciated
the following rules in evaluating administrative disciplinary cases:

1) If a judicial remedy is still available to the complainant, the

administrative complaint shall be dismissed outright, without
prejudice to re-filing should the complainant succeed in a judicial
action in proving that the public respondent's assailed act or
omission was indeed wrong and ill motivated.

2) If the administrative case is meant to harass, threaten or merely vex

the public respondent. In determining this, the following factors
may be considered:
a) the existence of other cases filed against the public respondent
by the same complainant or related complainants;
b) the position and influence of the complainant, particularly in the
locality where the public respondent is stationed;
_ A.M. No. RTJ-22-022 [Formerly DCA I.P.I. No. 19-4966-RTJ

c) the number of times that the public respondent has been

charged administratively and the corresponding dispositions in
these cases;
d) any decisions or judicial actions previously rendered by the
public respondent for or against the complainant;
e) the propensity of the complainant for filing administrative cases
against members and personnel of the Judiciary; and
f) any other factor indicative of improper pressure or influence.

Significantly, the Court further elucidated that "unfounded

criticisms against members of the Judiciary degrade the judicial office
and greatly interfere with the due performance of their functions in the
Judiciary. They not only needlessly drain the resources of the Court in
resolving them, they sow the seeds of distrust of the public against
members of the Judiciary." As a result, the Court dismissed the subject
case and directed the complainants to explain their act of filing a
premature complaint against respondent judge intended to harass or vex
the latter.

As a final note, the Court was emphatic in its pronouncement that it

"is cognizant of the sacrifices of our judges, who risk their very lives and
even those of their loved ones, in order to keep our courts open and
render the services our people need. None of them is perfect. Just as
none of us are. When they commit errors, it is our duty to correct them.
But when their circumstances call out for consideration, we must not tum
a blind eye." In addition, the Court emphasized that "a judge who
discharges his or her duties despite being beset with external pressures,
and who manages to fend off corrupt influences and remain true to his or
her oath, save only for an occasional error in judgment, should be
extended consideration and commiseration, not condemnation."

F or your information and guidance.

)
05 October 2022

Administrator

~Af)cJ/A.M No. RTJ-22-022.Misc.S03.csnl00322