Rivera v. Mirasol
REVERSALFacts
1. The Antecedents: Benjamin Rivera, Simeon Quilang, Jr., and Nicanor Asuncion were defendants in Civil Case No. 618, a property recovery case filed by the Municipality of Roxas, Isabela. The dispute centered on the municipality's motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction and writ of demolition against the complainants, who alleged that summons had not been served prior to the motion. 2. Procedural History: The respondent Judge issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction, placing the municipality in possession of the disputed areas, and subsequently denied the complainants' motion for reconsideration. Later, the respondent Judge granted the municipality's motion for a writ of demolition, leading to the demolition of the complainants' structures. After a period with no scheduled pre-trial, the municipality filed another motion for an alias writ of demolition, which was also granted. The complainants challenged these orders via a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The administrative complaint was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court for lack of merit, but upon motion for reconsideration, the Court considered the Court of Appeals' decision which annulled the respondent Judge's questioned orders. 3. The Petition: The complainants filed an Affidavit-Complaint against Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol, charging him with gross ignorance of the law. They argued that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion by issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that practically granted the principal relief sought without proper verification and bond, and that the subsequent writ of demolition lacked legal basis. The respondent Judge contended that his actions were merely errors of judgment and that the administrative case was moot due to his retirement. The Supreme Court, however, found the respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law, citing his patent disregard of well-known rules regarding the issuance of preliminary injunctions, and imposed a fine.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative complaint against respondent Judge is moot and academic due to his retirement. Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and writ of demolition based on an unverified application.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court finds respondent Judge GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW and imposes a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be deducted from the P20,000.00 retained from his retirement benefits. The remaining P10,000.00 is ordered RELEASED to Judge Mirasol. The resolution is to be attached to his personal files.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The administrative complaint against respondent Judge is not moot and academic due to his retirement. The case was filed on February 22, 2002, before his compulsory retirement on April 4, 2002. Therefore, the Supreme Court retains its authority to pursue the administrative complaint. Cessation from office due to retirement does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed while the respondent was still in service. This principle ensures accountability for actions taken during one's tenure in office, regardless of subsequent retirement. On Issue 2: Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing the writ of preliminary injunction and the concomitant writ of demolition based on an unverified application. Rule 58, Section 4 (a) of the Rules of Court explicitly requires that a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when the application is verified and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded. The absence of verification renders the application patently insufficient in form and substance. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction was not validly and legally issued, constituting a grave abuse of discretion as it practically granted the principal relief sought without trial. Consequently, the writ of demolition, issued pursuant to the invalid preliminary injunction, had no legal basis. The respondent Judge's claim that this was merely an error of judgment is unavailing, as it constituted a patent disregard of well-known rules, falling squarely under gross ignorance of the law. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one, not even judges.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that while not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of official duties constitutes misconduct, a patent disregard of well-established rules, such as issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without a verified application, amounts to gross ignorance of the law. The Court stressed that judges are bound to know the law and procedural rules, and ignorance thereof is not an excuse. Additionally, the Court affirmed that administrative complaints filed against a judge before their retirement are not moot and academic upon their cessation from office.