Facts:

This case involves a complaint filed by Edesio Adao against Judge Celso F. Lorenzo of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar, dated October 13, 1999. The incident leading to the complaint arose from the judge's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. 3391, entitled "Nerio B. Naputo v. Edesio Adao and the Municipal Local Government Officer of Taft, Eastern Samar." The case was assigned to Branch 2 of the RTC by special raffle, where Judge Lorenzo was designated as Acting Presiding Judge.

Edesio Adao, the complainant, was elected as barangay captain of Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar but faced an election protest from the losing candidate, Nerio Naputo, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 56-97 in the Municipal Trial Court of Taft. On June 13, 1997, Naputo's legal advisers filed a separate complaint for injunction (Civil Case No. 3391) to prevent Adao from being elected president of the Association of Barangay Captain

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainant: Edesio Adao, the duly elected barangay captain of Mabuhay, Taft, Eastern Samar.
• Respondent: Judge Celso F. Lorenzo, a judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1, Borongan, Eastern Samar.
• Context: The administrative complaint arises from the issuance by respondent of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. 3391, entitled Nerio B. Naputo v. Edesio Adao and the Municipal Local Government Officer of Taft, Eastern Samar.

Origin of the Dispute

• Election Contest: After Adao’s election as barangay captain, losing candidate Nerio Naputo filed an election protest, docketed as Civil Case No. 56-97 in the Municipal Trial Court of Taft, Eastern Samar.
• Separate Complaint for Injunction: On June 13, 1997, Naputo’s lawyers (Attys. Edwin B. Docena and Rodolfo Joji A. Acol, Jr.) filed a complaint for injunction (Civil Case No. 3391) to bar Adao from becoming president in the forthcoming elections for officers of the Association of Barangay Captains of the Municipality of Taft, Eastern Samar.

Issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

• Timing and Process:
• The TRO was issued on June 13, 1997, the same day the injunction complaint was filed.
• A subsequent order required Adao to answer the complaint, and the TRO was later noted as being issued without prior notice or summary hearing to Adao.
• Designation and Capacity of the Judge:
• Although by virtue of special raffle Civil Case No. 3391 was assigned to RTC Branch 2 (with respondent acting as its Presiding Judge), evidence suggests that the TRO and the order for answer were issued from Branch 1.
• Respondent himself had conflicting statements on whether he acted in his capacity as Executive Judge or as Acting Presiding Judge, thereby affecting the applicable requisites under Administrative Circular No. 20-95.

Allegations Against Respondent Judge

• Alleged Misconduct:
• Gross inexcusable negligence, manifest partiality, and evident bad faith in issuing the TRO.
• Failure to observe the required notice and summary hearing procedure as mandated by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
• Political Motivation and Influence:
• Accusation that the TRO was politically motivated, influenced by former Rep. Jose Ramirez and his associate, Naputo’s lawyer Atty. Docena.
• Accusation of a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including violations of provisions such as A3, par. 2, par. 3, and par. 9 of Rule 140, as well as Rules 2.03, 2.04, and 3.02.
• Subsequent Inaction:
• Complainant’s objection to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3391 (filed by Atty. Docena on June 23, 1997) remained unacted upon by the respondent.
• Respondent justified his failure to act on the objection by citing his heavy workload and the multiplicity of his judicial duties across several branches.

Respondent’s Defense and Comments

• First Comment (dated July 7, 1999):
• Claimed that he issued an order for the parties to be heard within ten days before subsequently issuing the TRO.
• Asserted that his actions were taken in the proper performance of his functions despite heavy workload and that the TRO was necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
• Denied that his decision was influenced by his connections with former Rep. Ramirez and contested the allegation of bad faith.
• Second Comment (dated July 14, 1999):
• Emphasized his simultaneous roles over multiple branches, noting the physical and administrative constraints faced as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 2 and Judge-Designate for other branches.
• Argued that his failure to act on the complainant’s objection was due to logistical and administrative burdens, and he deferred the resolution to the permanent judge of Branch 2 considering pending administrative and criminal complaints.

Issue:

Proper Capacity and Procedural Compliance

• Whether the TRO was issued by the respondent in his capacity as Executive Judge—with its attendant requirement of a 72-hour validity and immediate hearing—or as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 2, which requires a summary hearing within 24 hours after records transmission.
• The implications of the respondent’s conflicting statements regarding his capacity at the time of action.

Violation of Administrative Circular No. 20-95

• Whether the TRO was issued without following the mandatory notice to the complainant and summary hearing, as stipulated in the Circular.
• Whether the issuance of the TRO for a period of 20 days was consistent with or in violation of the rules governing temporary restraining orders.

Bad Faith and Political Motivation

• Whether respondent judge’s actions in issuing the TRO stemmed from improper political motivations or personal biases, particularly given his alleged connection to influential political figures.
• The extent to which respondent judge’s alleged misconduct represented a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Failure to Act on the Complainant’s Opposition

• Whether the respondent’s inaction in ruling on the complainant’s objection to the dismissal of Civil Case No. 3391 constitutes a violation of his judicial duties.
• Whether the respondent’s heavy workload and multiple responsibilities can be excused as a reason for such inaction.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)