Lago v. Abul
REVERSALFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, Spouses Democrito and Olivia Lago, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. for alleged gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from Judge Abul's actions in Civil Case No. 2009-905, specifically for assuming jurisdiction without a mandated raffle and notification, issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) without proper service of summons, setting a summary hearing beyond the 72-hour period, and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without prior notice and hearing. Procedural History: The Court initially found Judge Abul guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposed a fine. Judge Abul filed a motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Respondent Judge Abul sought reconsideration, asserting that the case was properly raffled, the TRO was issued to prevent irreparable damage, the delay in the summary hearing was due to logistical challenges and the need for notice, and that summons and notice of hearing were indeed served. He attached supporting documents, including a letter from the Clerk of Court, Sheriff's Return of Service, and a transcript of stenographic notes.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Abul committed gross ignorance of the law in assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2009-905 without the mandated raffle and notification, and in issuing a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction without proper notice and hearing. Whether the delay in conducting the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 17, 2011 is SET ASIDE, and the administrative complaint against Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of assuming jurisdiction, raffle, notice, and hearing for the TRO and preliminary injunction: The Court found the explanations of Judge Abul satisfactory and substantiated by official records. The Court noted that the raffle was conducted, summons and the 72-hour TRO were served on the complainants, and a hearing was subsequently held where parties argued and agreed to submit the application for preliminary injunction for resolution. The Court emphasized the importance of notice and hearing, stating that the trial court cannot proceed without giving all parties an opportunity to be heard. The records showed that these procedural requirements were substantially met. On the issue of delay in conducting the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO: The Court found the reasons advanced by Judge Abul to be well-taken. While Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules permits an executive judge to issue a TRO ex parte for 72 hours in cases of extreme urgency, the subsequent summary hearing to determine its extension must be conducted by the Presiding Judge. The Court acknowledged that the delay in holding this hearing was due to the remoteness of the trial court from the parties' addresses, making timely notice and service impractical. The Court reiterated that judges are not administratively liable for acts performed within their legal powers and jurisdiction unless moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. The complainants failed to prove any such malicious motive or impropriety on the part of Judge Abul. Therefore, penalizing him for the delay under these circumstances would be unwarranted.
Main Doctrine
Judges are not administratively liable for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction, unless they are shown to have acted in bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Every error or mistake does not necessarily render a judge liable.