Dela Paz v. Adiong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gabriel dela Paz, Officer-in-Charge of Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE), charged respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong with gross ignorance of the law and/or abuse of authority. Pacasum College, Inc., represented by Saripada Ali Pacasum, filed a petition for mandamus with application for a preliminary mandatory injunction against FAPE and its officials. On March 4, 2002, respondent judge issued a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction ordering FAPE and its officials to prepare and issue a check for P4,000,000.00 to Pacasum College, Inc., under pain of arrest and contempt. On March 5, 2002, the respondent judge ordered the sheriffs of Makati and Mandaluyong to serve the writ. FAPE filed an omnibus motion to set aside the orders and dismiss the case, arguing lack of summons, that the writ was outside the RTC of Marawi City's jurisdiction, granted without hearing and notice, and without a showing of irreparable injury or a filed bond. On May 6, 2002, the respondent judge ordered the sheriff of Makati City to take custody of the funds/check and release it to Saripada Ali Pacasum through garnishment proceedings. Makati sheriffs issued notices of garnishment. FAPE protested the garnishment, deeming it pursuant to an illegal and void order. Complainant alleged that the issuance of the writ was in disregard of B.P. Blg. 129 limiting RTCs' authority to issue writs within their regions and the notice and hearing requirements. He also pointed to an order dated April 22, 2002, in a separate corporate case where respondent judge directed FAPE to release P4,000,000.00, despite FAPE not being a party to that case, and despite the respondent judge having inhibited himself from that case. Procedural History: Respondent judge, in his second indorsement, explained that he had ordered the dismissal of the case per his resolution dated June 21, 2002, and had recalled and set aside his questioned orders, rendering the complaint moot and academic. Complainant countered that FAPE's counsel was not furnished a copy of the dismissal resolution, a motion for reconsideration was pending, and the garnishment order paralyzed FAPE's operations until a TRO was issued by the Court of Appeals. The Court Administrator found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of law and grave abuse of authority, recommending suspension. The Petition: The complainant prayed that the complaint not be dismissed as moot and academic.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without notice and hearing and outside his territorial jurisdiction. Whether the respondent judge committed abuse of authority in issuing an order in a case from which he had inhibited himself and involving a non-party. Whether the subsequent dismissal of the case renders the administrative complaint moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. He was suspended for six (6) months without pay, with a warning that a similar act in the future will warrant dismissal from the service.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without notice and hearing and outside territorial jurisdiction: The Court held that the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. Section 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court mandates that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party to be enjoined, unless great or irreparable injury would result before the matter can be heard. The records showed no compliance with these mandatory requirements. Furthermore, Section 21 of B.P. Blg. 129 limits the enforcement of writs issued by Regional Trial Courts to their respective judicial regions. The respondent judge's court was in Marawi City (Twelfth Judicial Region), but the writ was directed to FAPE in Makati City, which is outside his territorial jurisdiction. This rendered the writ void. The subsequent order directing sheriffs in Makati and Mandaluyong to serve the writ was also a jurisdictional error. The Court cited PNB vs. Pineda, Embassy Farms, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, and Martin vs. Guerrero to support the principle that RTCs can only enforce their writs within their designated territories. On the issuance of an order in a case from which the judge inhibited himself and involving a non-party: The Court found that the respondent judge abused his authority by issuing an order dated April 22, 2002, in Corporate Case No. 010, directing FAPE to comply with the writ issued in Special Civil Action No. 813-02. FAPE was not a party to Corporate Case No. 010. More significantly, the respondent judge had previously inhibited himself from trying Corporate Case No. 010 and the records were forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for reassignment. Despite this inhibition and the designation of another judge, the respondent judge issued the order, claiming the records were returned to his sala for further proceedings. The Court clarified that the return of records did not grant him authority to proceed, as the directive was for the designated judge to continue the trial. This act demonstrated a clear lack of authority and constituted grave abuse of authority. On whether the subsequent dismissal of the case renders the administrative complaint moot and academic: The Court was not persuaded by the respondent judge's contention that the dismissal of Special Civil Action No. 813-02 rendered the administrative complaint moot. The Court emphasized that the issue in an administrative complaint is the judge's conduct and violation of law or procedure, which is administrative in character and not rendered moot by the dismissal of the judicial case. The Court noted that the dismissal was a belated action on FAPE's omnibus motion, filed much earlier, and that the respondent judge had continued to issue orders detrimental to FAPE even after the motion was filed. The issuance of the May 6, 2002 order for garnishment was considered tantamount to a denial of the omnibus motion. Therefore, the subsequent dismissal did not absolve the respondent judge from administrative liability. The Court also took into account that this was the respondent judge's third offense involving similar acts, having been previously penalized for ignorance of the law.
Main Doctrine
A judge who issues a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without notice and hearing, and outside of his territorial jurisdiction, commits gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. Such acts are not rendered moot by the subsequent dismissal of the case, as the administrative issue of the judge's conduct remains.