Butuan v. Consolidated Broadcasting System
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The City Government of Butuan and City Mayor Leonides Theresa B. Plaza sought to deny the mayor's permit and close down Consolidated Broadcasting System (CBS), Inc. (Bombo Radyo Butuan). The Mayor cited CBS's operation in a residential area in violation of zoning ordinances, the expiration of its Temporary Use Permit (TUP) since 1997, failure to secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC), and numerous complaints from residents regarding noise, alleged incitement, and malicious imputations. The Sangguniang Panlungsod supported the Mayor's decision. 2. Procedural History: CBS and its manager filed a complaint for prohibition, mandamus, and damages against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, seeking to prevent the closure of their station. The assigned judge, Rosarito F. Dabalos, voluntarily inhibited himself due to perceived bias from CBS's critical commentaries. The case was returned for re-raffling but faced further recusal issues with other judges due to various circumstances, including relationships and prior legal counsel. Vice-Executive Judge Victor A. Tomaneng, after initially issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), directed Judge Dabalos to resume handling the case due to the urgency and lack of other available judges. Judge Dabalos subsequently granted a writ of preliminary injunction, which was challenged by the petitioners via a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed their petition, upholding Judge Dabalos's actions. 3. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review on certiorari of the CA's decision, arguing that the CA erred in not finding that Respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos acted with grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, they contend that Judge Dabalos improperly re-assumed jurisdiction over the case after his earlier inhibitions and erred in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without requiring CBS to present evidence to establish a clear right thereto. They argue that Judge Dabalos had effectively lost jurisdiction and that the issuance of the injunction was premature and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis.
Issue(s)
Whether Respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos acted with grave abuse of discretion when he re-assumed jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 5193 after voluntarily inhibiting himself. Whether Respondent Judge Rosarito F. Dabalos acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without requiring the private respondent to present evidence to show whether it has a clear right thereto.
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding that the Regional Trial Court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in upholding the questioned orders of the RTC. The petition for review on certiorari was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of re-assuming jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that a trial judge who voluntarily inhibits himself may, in the exercise of sound discretion, reconsider and re-assume jurisdiction. This is particularly true in cases where there is an urgent need to act, as in the application for a preliminary injunction, and no other judge is available to hear the case. The Court emphasized that the determination of grounds for inhibition is left to the sound discretion and conscience of the trial judge. In this case, Judge Dabalos' re-assessment of the circumstances, absent any showing of malice or improper motive, was not an unsound exercise of discretion. The urgency of the situation, with the TRO about to expire and other judges having inhibited themselves, provided a reasonable ground for Judge Dabalos to reconsider his inhibition and proceed with the hearing. His action was commendable as it fulfilled his sworn duty to dispense justice. On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction: The Supreme Court ruled that the writ of preliminary injunction was properly granted even without requiring Bombo Radyo to present extensive evidence. The Court explained that a preliminary injunction may be issued based on the averments in the verified complaint and the existence of a right prima facie established. In this case, Bombo Radyo was a grantee of a franchise from Congress, and the threatened act of closure by the City Mayor would curtail its rights under the franchise. Crucially, the petitioners failed to present evidence to show cause why the injunction should not be granted, despite being given the opportunity to do so. Rule 58 of the Rules of Court places the burden on the party against whom the TRO was issued to show cause against the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Their refusal to comply with this directive left the court with no alternative but to grant the writ.
Main Doctrine
A trial judge who voluntarily inhibits himself from a case may, under certain circumstances, reconsider and re-assume jurisdiction, especially when there is an urgent need to act and no other judge is available, provided such reconsideration is not tainted with arbitrariness or whimsy. Furthermore, the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction may be based on the averments in the verified complaint and the franchise granted by Congress, especially when the respondent fails to present evidence to controvert the applicant's claims after being given the opportunity to show cause.