Gomos v. Adiong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos, Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE), and Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum charged respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong with gross ignorance of law, abuse of authority, and gross misconduct. Saripada Ali Pacasum filed a Special Civil Action for mandamus with application for preliminary mandatory injunction against FAPE, alleging refusal to release subsidy funds. Procedural History: On February 26, 2001, respondent judge granted the preliminary mandatory injunction upon petitioner's bond. On February 28, 2001, he ordered FAPE's president to issue a check for P1,845,040.00 payable to Saripada Ali Pacasum. FAPE filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging these orders and arguing lack of jurisdiction and a pending ownership dispute. FAPE also sought a TRO against Saripada Ali Pacasum and his agents. On March 9, 2001, an order reiterating the previous directives was served, with a warning of contempt. On March 13, 2001, Saripada Ali Pacasum, with a Makati policeman, served a warrant of arrest on Dr. Borromeo. On March 14, 2001, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO enjoining the respondent judge. Despite the TRO, the respondent judge ordered the arrest of Dr. Borromeo and FAPE employees, two of whom were detained. The Petition: Separate complaints were filed by Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum and Atty. Jose Gomos, charging the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct for violating hearing, notice, and jurisdictional requirements in issuing the questioned orders. Respondent judge claimed the case was properly raffled, pleadings were in order, and there was an extreme necessity to resolve the case expeditiously.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and subsequent orders. Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority in citing FAPE employees for contempt without due process and in disregard of a TRO.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. He was suspended from office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits, with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction and subsequent orders: The Court held that respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law by issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on the same day the petition was filed and without prior notice and hearing to the adverse party, in evident disregard of Sections 4(c) and 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, his territorial jurisdiction as Presiding Judge of RTC, Marawi City, did not extend to Makati City where FAPE's principal office was located, thus violating Section 21(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one, not even judges, and that such errors, when the procedure is simple and facts are evident, amount to ignorance of the law. On citing FAPE employees for contempt: The Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for summarily punishing FAPE's president and employees for indirect contempt without a written charge or an opportunity to explain, violating Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The situation was aggravated by the fact that some employees cited for contempt were not even parties to the case. The arrest of these employees, despite the Court of Appeals issuing a TRO enjoining the respondent from enforcing his order, was deemed a reprehensible act. The Court reiterated that the contempt power must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, and a judge should not be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness. The failure to afford an alleged contemner the opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of due process and warrants administrative sanction. The Court noted that the judge's eagerness and haste in issuing the orders, warrants, and writ betrayed a design to railroad judicial processes to favor a litigant, violating Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority when issuing a writ of preliminary injunction outside territorial jurisdiction and summarily punishing individuals for contempt without due process, especially after being previously sanctioned for similar offenses.