Viaje v. Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Redentor S. Viaje filed a verified complaint against Judge Jose V. Hernandez for ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. The charges stemmed from Civil Case No. 0547-M, where the complainant's client, Gavino de Asis, sued the Municipality of Mauban, Quezon, represented by Mayor Fernando Llamas, for damages and preliminary injunction. The client alleged that the mayor was arbitrarily converting his farmland into a Core Housing Project. Procedural History: Despite the sheriff's return of service, Judge Hernandez allegedly refused to act on the plaintiff's prayer for a preliminary injunction. On December 7, 1998, the defendant Mayor Llamas filed a Motion to Dismiss. Instead of addressing the injunction, the respondent judge, on December 10, 1998, set a hearing for the Motion to Dismiss on January 14, 1999. On the hearing date, the plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, reiterating the request to set the injunction for hearing. The plaintiff claimed his prayer was ignored, and the judge further reset the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss to February 26, 1999, and then to March 26, 1999. The plaintiff alleged these acts showed ignorance of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and partiality amounting to grave misconduct. The Petition: The complainant charged Judge Hernandez with ignorance of the law and grave misconduct for refusing to act on the prayer for preliminary injunction and for unduly delaying the proceedings by repeatedly resetting the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. Whether respondent judge unduly delayed the resolution of the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Ruling
The Court found that Judge Jose V. Hernandez should be sanctioned for undue delay in acting on the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, although he could not be held liable for ignorance of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on the respondent judge and directed him to try and decide the case and all its incidents with dispatch.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ignorance of the law and grave misconduct: The Court held that while the respondent judge could not be held liable for ignorance of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, his prolonged inaction on the plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief was a cause for sanction. The Court noted that the judge's contention that he wanted to prevent improvident issuance or improper denial of the writ was a justification for careful consideration, but not for a delay of four months before scheduling the injunction for hearing. The judge's excuse for the postponement of the February 26, 1999 hearing, attending a dialogue with the Chief Justice and Court Administrator, was deemed a "lame excuse" as it did not absolve him from the fact that the prayer was ignored for a considerable length of time. Furthermore, the prolonged inaction gave the defendant ample time to file pleadings, fueling suspicion of bias and partiality. The Court stressed that undue delay undermines public faith and confidence in the judiciary. On the issue of undue delay in acting on the prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found the respondent judge liable for undue delay. It was incumbent upon the judge to immediately act on the plaintiff's prayer, whether by granting, denying, or deferring its resolution. The application for injunctive relief had been pending for four months before being scheduled for hearing. The Court reiterated the principle that undue delay undermines public faith and confidence in judges. Citing the case of Dumaya vs. Mendoza, where a judge was fined for a five-month delay in resolving a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court adopted a similar ruling and imposed a fine of P1,000.00 on Judge Hernandez for his delay. The respondent judge was also directed to try and decide the case and all its incidents with dispatch.
Main Doctrine
Judges are mandated to act with dispatch on all prayers for injunctive relief, and undue delay in resolving such applications, regardless of the urgency or merits of the prayer, constitutes a violation of judicial duty and undermines public faith in the judiciary.