Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1553)
Facts:
Attys. Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and Ricardo Ma. P.G. Ongkiko vs. Judge Celso D. Lavina, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1553, November 20, 2000, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Complainants, partners at Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan and counsel for Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd. (Tokyu), filed a sworn administrative complaint on July 28, 1997 accusing Judge Celso D. Lavina (respondent), presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 71, of grave misconduct for issuing several orders and a writ in Civil Case No. 66060 that allegedly interfered with the construction of NAIA Terminal 2, a government infrastructure project.
Background events began when four firms formed the MTOB Consortium to bid for the NAIA Terminal 2 contract; the Consortium won and disputes arose as to allocation of work and fees. On January 10, 1997 BF Corporation filed Civil Case No. 66060 against Tokyu seeking, among other reliefs, a temporary restraining order (TRO). Pursuant to existing Supreme Court circulars the Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO; the case was raffled to Branch 71 on January 13, 1997. Tokyu immediately opposed, citing Presidential Decree No. 1818 (PD 1818) and Supreme Court Circulars Nos. 13-93 and 68-94, which prohibit injunctive writs that impede government infrastructure projects, but respondent on January 21, 1997 extended the TRO to the full 20-day period.
Tokyu filed a special civil action in the Court of Appeals (CA) (C.A. G.R. SP No. 43133). The CA issued a TRO on February 5, 1997 enjoining respondent from enforcing his January 21, 1997 Order. On May 15, 1997 the CA allowed respondent to proceed with the suspended injunction hearing but limited the scope to pendente lite recognition of BF’s consortium status and its share of payments; Tokyu moved for reconsideration. Respondent set hearings in June 1997, denied postponement, struck out testimony of a Tokyu witness, and thereafter on July 8, 1997 issued an order granting preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunctions; a writ dated July 18, 1997 was served on Tokyu. The CA, in a separate special civil action (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 44729), on October 20, 1997 ruled that the July 8 Order and the July 18 writ were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; it did not rule on the June 13 and June 30 orders. That CA decision was later brought to this Court in a Petition for Review docketed as G.R. No. 131155, which remained pending.
Respondent filed a Comment (a "2nd Indorsement") on October 17, 1997. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted a R...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the administrative complaint against respondent, insofar as it challenges the Orders dated June 13, June 30 and July 8, 1997 and the writ dated July 18, 1997, premature?
- Did respondent violate PD 1818 and related Supreme Court circulars by issuing the January 21, 1997 Order extending the TRO to 20 days, and is he adminis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)