Philippine Investment Two v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Incorporated (PI TWO), a Special Purpose Vehicle, acquired a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-374946. PI TWO filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession, which was granted, and a Writ of Possession was issued in its favor. Procedural History: The Heirs of Wilson Nuesa filed a complaint for Quieting of Title, Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Revocation of Donation, etc., against various parties including PI TWO. They alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale between their father and Adelaine Samonte was null and void. The Heirs of Nuesa informed the sheriff of their intention to avail of the remedy of terceria. Respondent Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza issued an Order admitting the Amended Complaint and another Order directing the issuance of a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) upon posting of a bond. Subsequently, the TRO was issued, enjoining the sheriff from implementing the Writ of Possession. The TRO was extended by the respondent Judge. PI TWO filed a Manifestation raising objections, averring lack of jurisdiction due to non-receipt of summons and irregular extension of the TRO. PI TWO was eventually served with summons and a copy of the complaint, and later received a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) dated October 12, 2017. The Heirs of Nuesa filed a Motion to Substitute Cash Bond with an Injunction Bond, which was granted by the respondent Judge seven days before the scheduled hearing. The Petition: PI TWO filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Mendoza for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, assailing the Orders issuing the TRO, extending its validity, and granting the motion to substitute the bond.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Mendoza is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment. Whether the Orders issued by respondent Judge Mendoza, specifically the TRO, its extension, and the substitution of bond, were judicious.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law. He was ordered to pay a fine of P25,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition of similar infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment: The Court affirmed the findings of the OCA, holding that respondent Judge Mendoza committed missteps in issuing the assailed Orders. While the wisdom of the initial 72-hour TRO could not be passed upon, the failure to serve summons on PI TWO after its issuance was a curable defect. More importantly, the respondent Judge was remiss in his duties by failing to set a summary hearing to determine the TRO's extension within its 72-hour effectivity. Instead, the hearing for the preliminary injunction was set beyond the TRO's validity. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law, especially when the rules are elementary, constitutes gross ignorance and cannot be excused by good faith. Judges are expected to be proficient in the law and keep abreast with its developments to avoid eroding public confidence in the Judiciary. The failure to apply settled laws and jurisprudence on the issuance of TROs constitutes gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The Court reiterated that judges must be embodiments of competence, integrity, and independence, exhibiting more than a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. On the Issue of the Orders issued by respondent Judge Mendoza, specifically the TRO, its extension, and the substitution of bond, were judicious: The Court found that the respondent Judge erroneously extended the TRO beyond the 20-day maximum period allowed by the Rules of Court, including the initial 72 hours. The TRO issued on September 20, 2017, could only be extended until October 10, 2017, but it was erroneously extended until October 12, 2017.
Main Doctrine
A judge who commits an error that is gross or patent, deliberate or malicious, or ignores, contradicts, or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence due to bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, which cannot be excused by a claim of good faith. The rules on the issuance and extension of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) are elementary, and failure to adhere to them constitutes gross ignorance of the law.