Short answer. No. The judge or tribunal is joined only as public respondent; the petitioner must instead join the private party interested in sustaining the proceedings, who has the duty to defend it, and any costs awarded go against that private respondent, not the judge or tribunal.

What the law says

When the petition filed relates to the acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, the petitioner shall join, as private respondent or respondents with such public respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the duty of such private respondents to appear and defend, both in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the public respondent or respondents affected by the proceedings, and the costs awarded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the private respondents only, and not against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person impleaded as public respondent or respondents.

Rule 65, Section 5 — Respondents and costs in certain cases. Read the full provision →

Public respondent versus private respondent

A certiorari petition challenging a judge's or tribunal's acts must join that judge, court, quasi-judicial agency, or officer as the public respondent, but it must also join, as private respondent, whoever actually has an interest in sustaining the challenged proceedings — typically the opposing party from the underlying case. Naming the judge as public respondent is a formal requirement to bring the challenged act before the reviewing court; it is not the same as suing the judge personally for damages or wrongdoing.

Who has to defend the case

The duty to appear and defend the proceedings falls on the private respondents, both on their own behalf and on behalf of the public respondent whose actions are being questioned. This keeps the judge or tribunal from having to personally litigate a challenge to an official act, leaving that burden instead on the party who actually stands to gain from the challenged order or decision remaining in place.

Costs and later stages

Any costs awarded in favor of the petitioner are charged against the private respondents only, never against the judge, court, or other public respondent. Unless the court specifically directs otherwise, the public respondent does not even need to appear or file an answer, and if the case is elevated later, the public respondent is included only as a nominal party.

Why the rule is structured this way

Judges and tribunals decide countless cases, and if every losing party could effectively force the judge to personally litigate a challenge to that decision, judicial officers would be diverted from their actual work and discouraged from ruling firmly for fear of being dragged into extended personal litigation. Putting the defense burden on the private respondent — the party the ruling actually benefits — keeps the certiorari proceeding focused on whether the challenged act itself was valid, rather than turning it into a dispute against the judge personally.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.