Calo v. Abul
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ramon M. Calo charged respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. with serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order. The charges stemmed from the respondent's issuance of a Resolution granting a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in Civil Case No. 1242, followed by the dissolution of the writ without requiring a counter bond. Complainant alleged that the respondent was influenced by politicians interested in the stevedoring business. Procedural History: The respondent judge issued a Resolution granting NIASSI's prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. PPA filed a Motion for Reconsideration. A hearing initially set for April 1, 2005, was moved to March 31, 2005, but was cancelled. The hearing was instead conducted on April 1, 2005, with the respondent noting the absence of NIASSI's counsels. On April 11, 2005, the respondent issued a resolution dissolving the writ immediately without requiring PPA to post a counter bond. Complainant contended this act constituted gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order, and serious misconduct. The Petition: Complainant alleged undue influence and pressure from politicians on the respondent judge. The respondent, in his Comment, denied bias and partiality, explaining the scheduling of hearings and asserting that the lifting of the writ was based on the impending expiration of NIASSI's Holdover Authority/Permit. NIASSI, through the complainant, filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals and a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition of the respondent. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the complaint bereft of merit, recommending a stern warning to the respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and knowingly rendered an unjust interlocutory order in dissolving the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction without requiring a counter bond. Whether the respondent judge showed bias and partiality towards PPA.
Ruling
The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondent judge is STERNLY WARNED to be more circumspect in issuing orders which must truly reflect the actual facts they represent to obviate engendering views of partiality among litigants.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order: The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is discretionary. The matter is judicial in nature, and remedies for prejudice from such orders lie with the proper reviewing court, not the OCA via administrative complaint. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, a judge's acts in a judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even if erroneous. The records lacked evidence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption by the respondent judge. Therefore, it was improper for the complainant to file an administrative complaint to challenge the exercise of the respondent's judicial discretion. Furthermore, NIASSI had already filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the same acts, which is the proper venue to resolve issues of grave abuse of discretion, gross ignorance of the law, or serious misconduct. The dissolution of the writ was justified by the impending expiration of NIASSI's permit, rendering the continued enforcement of the writ baseless. The absence of a counter bond was also explained by this expiration. On the alleged bias and partiality towards PPA: There was no evidence of bias or partiality. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of proving the averments of the complaint with substantial evidence. The presumption of regularity in a judge's performance of functions prevails, and bias or prejudice cannot be presumed without clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of bias are insufficient to overcome this presumption. The Court has consistently held that mere suspicion of partiality is not enough; clear and convincing evidence is required. The respondent judge's explanation regarding the scheduling of hearings and the basis for dissolving the writ did not demonstrate any intent to favor PPA.
Main Doctrine
Acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith. Challenges to the exercise of judicial discretion should be brought before the proper reviewing court via certiorari, not through an administrative complaint.