A.M. No. RTJ-18-2537 - Bogabong vs. Balindong

Complainant Abdulsamad P. Bogabong, having been elected as First Kagawad of Barangay Bubonga Marawi in the July 2002 Barangay Elections, assumed the office of Barangay Chairman in a hold-over capacity upon the death of the incumbent, Dianisia P. Bacarat.
His assumption was reinforced by certifications issued on April 9 and 10, 2008 by the DILG, Lanao del Sur, attesting to his hold-over chairmanship.
A conflict arose when, on April 10, 2008, Marawi City Mayor Fahad U. Salic appointed a civilian, Omera Hadji Isa-Ali, as Barangay Chairman. Subsequently, Director Haroun Alrashid A. Lucman, Jr. recognized Omera as the legitimate Barangay Chairman in a May 7, 2008 certification.

Complainant, challenging the mayor’s appointment through a letter-complaint to the DILG-ARMM, was later recognized (May 5, 2009) as the rightful holder of the position in hold-over capacity.
While he resumed functions, complainant’s withdrawal of the May 2009 Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of the barangay led Omera to file a quo warranto case against him.
Respondent-judge Rasad G. Balindong, acting as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Marawi City Branch 8, issued orders on July 2, 2009 granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) and on July 22, 2009 a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) directing complainant and the Land Bank of the Philippines to cease disbursing the IRA.

On August 24, 2009, the respondent-judge issued a decision granting Omera’s petition for quo warranto by ruling that complainant’s failure to assume office within one year and two months amounted to a waiver of his right.
Complainant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 03135-MIN), and the CA reversed the trial court’s ruling, declaring him the rightful Barangay Chairman under both the Local Government Code and the Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 25.
The CA further set aside the TRO, WPI, and the order for execution pending appeal (August 28, 2009) by finding that the respondent-judge had acted without proper evidentiary basis and in violation of judicial rules.
The respondent-judge defended his actions by asserting that he acted reasonably, prudently, and accorded both parties a fair hearing; he attributed any errors to mere error of judgment and insisted that his actions were in line with his judicial practice.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted an administrative investigation, finding that the respondent-judge’s actions displayed gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and grave abuse of authority—highlighting that he had repeatedly issued injunctive orders without requiring the mandatory posting of bonds.

The respondent-judge had faced previous administrative sanctions in similar instances, notably in Benito v. Balindong and Cabili v. Balindong, where his issuance of TROs/WPIs without proper jurisdiction or bond posting was condemned.
The repeated nature of these infractions contributed to the determination that the respondent-judge’s conduct constituted more than a mere error in judgment and warranted serious administrative penalty.

Whether respondent-judge Balindong committed gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority by:

Recognizing Omera as the legitimate Barangay Chairman solely based on the mayor’s appointment without affording due regard to the rules of automatic succession?
Issuing a TRO and the subsequent WPI without requiring the compulsory posting of a bond as mandated by Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court?

Whether the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal was legally justified:

Whether the respondent-judge had sufficient evidentiary basis or “good reasons” to support the claim that execution was necessary pending appeal, notably given the mere allegation of dilatoriness on the part of the complainant?
Whether the decision to execute pending appeal encroached upon the appellate domain when determining if an appeal is dilatory.

Whether the actions of the respondent-judge, when viewed in the context of existing jurisprudence and repeated similar violations, warrant severe administrative sanctions beyond a mere error of judgment.