Short answer. Yes. A judge who knowingly issues an unjust interlocutory order commits a crime under the Revised Penal Code. An interlocutory order is a ruling that does not end the case, and the law punishes a judge who hands one down knowing it to be unjust.
What the law says
Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and suspension
Revised Penal Code, Article 206 — Unjust Interlocutory Order. Read the full provision →
What the article actually punishes
The provision targets a judge, and only a judge, who shall knowingly render an unjust interlocutory order or decree. The key word is knowingly: the offence is committed when the judge is aware the order is wrong and issues it anyway. The article also reaches a second, lesser situation, where the judge did not act deliberately but by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance and the order is manifestly unjust. In that second form the punishment is lighter, but it is still a criminal offence. An honest mistake of judgment, without either bad faith or inexcusable ignorance, is not what this article is about.
What 'interlocutory' means here
An interlocutory order is one that settles some incidental question while the main case is still going on, such as a ruling on a motion, on evidence, or on a provisional remedy, as opposed to the final judgment that disposes of the whole controversy. This article deals specifically with those in-between rulings. The reason the law singles them out is that a corrupt or reckless interim order can do real damage long before the case ends. It can freeze property, deny relief, or tilt the proceedings, all without a final decision that anyone can immediately appeal.
The line between error and crime
Not every wrong order exposes a judge to prosecution. Judges decide contested questions daily, and many rulings are later reversed on appeal without anyone having done anything criminal. What turns a mistaken order into an offence under this article is the judge's state of mind, namely knowledge that the order is unjust, or an ignorance and negligence so gross the law calls it inexcusable. The ordinary remedy for a merely erroneous interlocutory order is not a criminal complaint but the correction of the order itself through the proper court process. Criminal liability is reserved for the deliberate or the inexcusable.
If you believe a judge acted in bad faith
This is a serious accusation, and it is judged on what can be proven about the judge's knowledge and motive, not on how unfair the order felt to the losing side. Keep the order itself, the records showing what was before the judge when it was issued, and anything indicating the judge knew the true position and ruled against it. Understand too that questioning an order and prosecuting a judge are different roads with different standards. A lawyer can help you separate a ruling you can still challenge from conduct that might cross into the criminal.