Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656)
Facts:
On October 23, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a sworn complaint from Edgardo D. Balsamo, the Senior Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), against Hon. Pedro L. Suan, the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 15 in Ozamis City. The complaint, dated October 13, 2000, alleged multiple charges against Judge Suan, including apparent bias and partiality in favor of a party, indiscriminate issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writs of preliminary injunction, grave misconduct, inefficiency, incompetence, and gross ignorance of the law. The complainant sought a judgment finding the respondent guilty of these charges and imposing appropriate sanctions. The case was assigned to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. for investigation.
The charges stemmed from five civil cases pending before Judge Suan's sala, initiated by borrowers of BPI seeking to prevent the bank from fo...
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656)
Facts:
Background of the Complaint
- On October 23, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a sworn complaint from Edgardo Balsamo, Senior Manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), against Judge Pedro L. Suan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Ozamis City.
- The complaint alleged the following charges against Judge Suan:
- Apparent Bias and Partiality in Favor of a Party
- Indiscriminate Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) and Writs of Preliminary Injunction, Amounting to Ignorance of the Law
- Grave Misconduct, Inefficiency, and Incompetence
- Failure to Decide and Resolve an Incident Pending Resolution Within the Period Provided by Administrative Circular Nos. 4 and 3-99 of the Supreme Court
- Gross Ignorance of the Law
Civil Case No. OZC-98-39: Geege Megamall, Inc. v. BPI
- On September 1, 1998, Judge Suan denied the issuance of a TRO, stating there was no urgency. However, on September 30, 1998, he issued a TRO motu proprio, enjoining BPI from foreclosing the property.
- On October 21, 1998, Judge Suan issued a writ of preliminary injunction with a bond of P1,000,000, which BPI claimed was disproportionate to the damages being claimed.
- BPI challenged the writ in the Court of Appeals, which sustained the order. The Supreme Court dismissed BPI’s petition for review due to late filing.
- Judge Suan was accused of bias for issuing the TRO motu proprio after initially denying it.
Civil Case No. OZC-98-46: Spouses Nelson Lee and Noemi Lee v. BPI
- BPI initiated foreclosure proceedings against the plaintiffs for unpaid obligations. The plaintiffs filed a case for damages and sought a TRO, which Judge Suan granted.
- Despite the plaintiffs admitting their inability to pay, Judge Suan issued a writ of preliminary injunction, preventing BPI from foreclosing.
- BPI alleged that Judge Suan violated procedural rules by issuing the TRO ex parte without proper notice.
Civil Case No. OZC-98-47: Philippine Compak Board, Inc. v. BPI
- The plaintiffs sought a TRO to prevent foreclosure of their property due to unpaid obligations amounting to P21,671,905.94.
- Judge Suan issued a TRO on October 14, 1998, without notice to BPI, violating Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- Despite the TRO expiring on November 3, 1998, Judge Suan did not act on BPI’s motion to proceed with foreclosure until December 5, 1999, when he issued a writ of preliminary injunction with a bond of only P200,000.
- The Court of Appeals annulled the writ, and the Supreme Court sustained the decision.
Civil Case No. OZC-98-48: Eugene Lim v. BPI
- Judge Suan issued a TRO in favor of the plaintiff, who owed BPI P13,037,146.98.
- BPI filed a motion to proceed with foreclosure, but Judge Suan did not act on it for over a year.
- On March 13, 2000, Judge Suan issued a writ of preliminary injunction for three cases (OZC-98-48, 98-49, and 98-47) with a bond of only P200,000, despite the total loans amounting to P38,500,000.
Civil Case No. OZC-98-49: Eugene Lim v. BPI
- Similar to OZC-98-48, Judge Suan failed to act on BPI’s motion to proceed with foreclosure for over a year.
- He issued a writ of preliminary injunction for three cases with a bond of only P200,000, which BPI claimed was grossly inadequate.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Suan exhibited bias and partiality in favor of the plaintiffs in the five civil cases.
- Whether Judge Suan’s issuance of TROs and writs of preliminary injunction violated procedural rules and demonstrated gross ignorance of the law.
- Whether Judge Suan’s failure to resolve pending motions and incidents within the prescribed period constituted gross inefficiency and misconduct.
- Whether Judge Suan’s actions warranted administrative sanctions.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Conclusion:
- Judge Pedro L. Suan was found guilty of gross inefficiency and fined P15,000, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Court emphasized the importance of prompt disposition of cases and adherence to procedural rules to maintain public trust in the judiciary.