Gustilo v. Real, Sr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rimeo S. Gustilo charged respondent Judge Ricardo S. Real, Sr. with gross misconduct, gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act relative to an election protest case concerning the May 12, 1997 elections for punong barangay. Complainant and his opponent, Weddy C. Libo-on, tied with 819 votes. The tie-breaking resulted in complainant's proclamation as the duly elected punong barangay. Libo-on filed an election protest, seeking recounting of ballots, preliminary prohibitory injunction, and damages. Procedural History: Respondent judge initially set the hearing for June 6, 1997. Upon Libo-on's motion, the hearing was advanced to May 29 and 30, 1997, without furnishing complainant a copy of the order. On May 29, 1997, respondent issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) annulling complainant's proclamation. Complainant was not served a copy of this order. On May 30, 1997, complainant took his oath of office and filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City. On June 5, 1997, the RTC lifted the TRO and declared the annulment of complainant's proclamation void. Complainant moved for respondent's inhibition, which was denied. On June 11, 1997, respondent issued a second TRO to maintain the status quo, which complainant argued reversed the RTC's order. Complainant was subsequently excluded from the election of the Liga ng Mga Barangay. The Petition: Complainant Gustilo filed a verified complaint against respondent Judge Real, Sr. for alleged misconduct, incompetence, ignorance of the law, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross misconduct, gross incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by issuing the first TRO and annulling the complainant's proclamation. Whether respondent judge gravely abused his authority in issuing the second TRO after the first order was set aside by the RTC, demonstrating partiality. Whether respondent judge violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically regarding faithfulness to the law, maintaining professional competence, and avoiding partisan interests.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of violating Rules 3.01 and 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and bias and partiality. Accordingly, a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) was imposed upon the respondent with a stern warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the first TRO and annulment of proclamation: The Court held that respondent judge's failure to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95 in issuing the first TRO on May 29, 1997, without notifying and hearing all parties in a summary hearing, constituted grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. The Court emphasized that Administrative Circular No. 20-95 clearly mandates that a TRO application must be acted upon only after all parties have been heard in a summary hearing. Furthermore, the respondent judge compounded this infraction by annulling complainant's proclamation, an act that his court was not vested with the power or jurisdiction to perform. The Court noted that the power to annul proclamations is exclusively vested by law in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), and a judge who usurps such authority acts in oppressive disregard of due process and creates chaos in the administration of justice. The respondent's justification that the proclamation was void ab initio did not cure his transgression of jurisdictional boundaries. On the second TRO and alleged reversal of RTC order: The Court found that respondent judge's issuance of a second TRO on June 11, 1997, after his first order was set aside by the RTC, demonstrated his partiality to the complainant's political rival. The Court stated that while the respondent insisted his act did not reverse the RTC's order, the evident purpose of the second TRO was to prevent the complainant from participating in the election of the Liga ng mga Barangay. The Court reiterated the requisites for issuing an injunctive writ, including the existence of a right to be protected and a showing of urgent and paramount necessity to prevent serious damage. In this case, the complainant had been duly proclaimed and had taken his oath, and his exercise of rights would not cause irreparable injury to the losing candidate to justify the TRO. The Court found no reason to disagree with the OCA's finding that the second TRO was issued to prevent the complainant from assuming office. On gross ignorance of the law and violation of judicial conduct: The Court found that respondent judge displayed a marked ignorance of basic laws and principles by transgressing the jurisdictional demarcation lines between his court and the COMELEC. Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. By annulling the proclamation despite knowing his court lacked the power, the respondent was guilty of grave abuse of authority, unfaithfulness to a basic legal rule, and injudicious conduct. Moreover, by willfully nullifying the proclamation without authority, he knowingly issued an unjust order. The Court also cited Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge shall diligently ascertain the facts and applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion, or fear of criticism. The respondent's actions, particularly the issuance of the second TRO after the RTC's ruling, showed partiality and a failure to adhere to this rule.
Main Doctrine
A judge who issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) without the required summary hearing after all parties have been notified and heard, and who annuls a proclamation despite lacking the authority to do so, commits grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, demonstrating gross ignorance of the law and partiality.