Ortega v. Dacara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Santiago D. Ortega, Jr. (complainant), president of Siramag Fishing Corporation (SFC), filed an administrative case against Judge Rogelio Ll. Dacara (respondent judge) for gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence. SFC and complainant filed a case for Damages with Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against officials of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) concerning the renewal of a commercial fishing vessel license. The case was raffled to RTC-Branch 37, Iriga City, presided over by respondent judge. Procedural History: Respondent judge issued an Order dated April 22, 2013, denying the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The denial was based on the grounds that plaintiffs had not shown a clear and inestimable right, the court was prohibited from issuing such injunctions under PD 605 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, and the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants. Complainant alleged that the respondent judge showed incompetence by failing to distinguish between a preliminary injunction and a preliminary mandatory injunction, and by asserting lack of jurisdiction. The case was eventually transferred to RTC-Branch 35, a designated environmental court. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence for his Order denying the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. The respondent judge maintained that a preliminary mandatory injunction is included in the prohibition under PD 605 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, and that he had grounds for denial based on the lack of a clear right and the prohibition. He also defended his belief regarding jurisdiction and his cognizance of the case as not being an environmental court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence in denying the application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Whether respondent judge erred in his understanding of the prohibition under PD 605 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC regarding preliminary mandatory injunctions. Whether respondent judge erred in asserting lack of jurisdiction over the defendants located in Pili, Camarines Sur. Whether respondent judge should have taken cognizance of the case as it involved environmental issues and his sala was not a designated environmental court.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Judge Rogelio Ll. Dacara is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence, and the denial of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction: The Court concluded that the respondent judge was not liable for gross ignorance of the law or gross inexcusable negligence. While he made an error regarding jurisdiction, his primary reason for denying the injunction was legally sound due to the prohibition under PD 605. There was no evidence presented to show that the respondent judge acted with malice or bad faith. The Court considered his extensive service and the fact that this was his only administrative case, further supporting the dismissal of the complaint. The Court found that respondent judge was correct in denying the prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Section 1 of PD 605 expressly prohibits any court from issuing a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in cases involving actions by administrative officials on concessions, licenses, or permits related to the exploitation of natural resources. The case filed by SFC, which sought the renewal of a fishing vessel license, clearly fell under this prohibition. Therefore, the respondent judge's denial was proper, irrespective of whether the term "preliminary injunction" was used interchangeably with "preliminary mandatory injunction." Furthermore, the respondent judge also correctly noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear and inestimable right to be protected, which is a fundamental requirement for the issuance of such a writ. On the prohibition under PD 605 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC regarding preliminary mandatory injunctions: The Court found that respondent judge was correct in denying the prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Section 1 of PD 605 expressly prohibits any court from issuing a restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary mandatory injunction in cases involving actions by administrative officials on concessions, licenses, or permits related to the exploitation of natural resources. The case filed by SFC, which sought the renewal of a fishing vessel license, clearly fell under this prohibition. Therefore, the respondent judge's denial was proper, irrespective of whether the term "preliminary injunction" was used interchangeably with "preliminary mandatory injunction." Furthermore, the respondent judge also correctly noted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear and inestimable right to be protected, which is a fundamental requirement for the issuance of such a writ. On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court acknowledged that respondent judge erred in stating that RTC-Branch 37 of Iriga City had no jurisdiction over defendants whose office was in Pili, Camarines Sur. Section 21 of BP 129 allows RTCs to issue writs of injunction enforceable within their respective regions, and both Iriga City and Pili are within the Fifth Judicial Region. However, this error did not render the respondent judge liable. The Court emphasized that the primary reason for denying the injunction was the prohibition under PD 605 and the failure to establish a clear right, making the denial proper despite the jurisdictional misstatement. The Court reiterated that not every error by a judge constitutes gross ignorance of the law; it must be accompanied by bad faith or a deliberate intent to cause injustice. On taking cognizance of the case as a non-environmental court: The Court found no fault with the respondent judge taking cognizance of the case, as it was properly raffled to his sala. The complaint did not explicitly state that it was an environmental case, as required by A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC. Therefore, it was not apparent from the outset that the case should have been assigned to a designated environmental court. The fact that the case was eventually transferred to RTC-Branch 35, an environmental court, did not retroactively invalidate the respondent judge's initial handling of the case. The complainant's active participation in the proceedings before respondent judge, including arguing for the injunction, further undermined the claim that the respondent judge should not have handled the case at all.
Main Doctrine
A judge is not liable for gross ignorance of the law or gross inexcusable negligence for an erroneous ruling if the ruling was not motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, especially when the ruling was proper on substantive grounds despite a jurisdictional error.