However, as to the allegation of grave misconduct in holding a hearing notwithstanding the fact that defendant’s counsel already rested his case, the same has no leg to stand on. It should be emphasized that the questioned ruling of respondent judge was done in the discharge of his judicial functions. Time and again, we have ruled that the acts of a judge, pertaining to his judicial functions, are not subject to disciplinary action, unless they are tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. This, complainant failed to establish.
If the complainant felt aggrieved, his recourse is through judicial remedies, i.e., to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. Indeed, disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against magistrates do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality. In fine, only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. 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 administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.