A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047, RTJ-07-2048

The administrative cases were initiated against Judge Eddie R. Rojas of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, General Santos City.
The cases stemmed from a complaint by the Gensanville Homeowners Association against E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd. and Engr. Patrick Nicholas Corpus before the HLURB concerning specific performance and damages related to the development of Gensanville Subdivision (Phase I).

The homeowners association prevailed before the HLURB, which subsequently issued a Writ of Execution against E.B. Villarosa.
Atty. Elmer D. Lastimosa (Clerk of Court VI) and Ramon A. Castillo (Sheriff IV) of the RTC executed the writ by garnishing all money, deposits, and interests, including water payments from the residents.
A Notice of Garnishment was issued, ordering parties to pay water bills to the trial court until the writ was fully satisfied.

E.B. Villarosa filed a Complaint for Injunction seeking a TRO to prevent garnishment, arguing that the garnished water bills comprised part of funds belonging to third-party employees, suppliers, and governmental taxes.
Vice-Executive Judge Antonio C. Lubao had earlier noted (May 12, 2003) that the motion for a 72-hour TRO should be handled by the appellate courts, citing the co-ordinate status of the HLURB with the RTC.
Judge Rojas later conducted a hearing (May 15, 2003) in Civil Case No. 7234, issued a twenty-day TRO, and directed the simultaneous submission of memoranda.
On June 12, 2003, he issued a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, actions which spawned the present administrative cases.

In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2047, the Vice-President of the homeowners association alleged that the association was denied its right to due process because it was not impleaded as a party defendant in Civil Case No. 7234.
In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2048, other association members questioned the TRO issued by Judge Rojas, contending it interfered with the earlier order rendered by Vice-Executive Judge Lubao, and complained about their non-impleadment.
Judge Rojas defended his actions by asserting that he acted after a careful examination of the complaint and that what was restrained were not the HLURB decisions but the methods of their execution.
He contended that his actions were necessary to protect E.B. Villarosa from irreparable injury pending a thorough adjudication of the parties’ claims.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Rojas administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
The OCA noted his failure to implead the prevailing parties—as required by Sections 2 and 7, Rule 3, of the Rules of Court, and his erroneous advice during the TRO hearing indicating that real parties-in-interest should have been joined.
The disciplinary record revealed that Judge Rojas had previously been fined P10,000.00 for similar lapses in judicial prudence, specifically failure to inhibit himself in a criminal case.
The OCA recommended a fine and stern warning, although the reviewing court found the fine too light given the gravity of his second infraction.

The HLURB, as a quasi-judicial agency co-equal with the RTC, had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes involving unsound real estate practices and claims from buyers of subdivision lots.
The decision of the HLURB is appealable, and its enforcement procedures were meant to be respected by the RTC.
Judge Rojas’ issuance of the TRO and the subsequent injunction, without properly joining the prevailing parties and in contradiction to HLURB’s co-ordinate role, constituted a clear overreach of his judicial authority.

Whether the complainants’ right to due process was violated by not being joined as indispensable parties in the injunction suit, despite being the prevailing party before the HLURB.
Whether the failure to implead the real parties-in-interest rendered the judicial acts of the TRO and subsequent injunction null and void.

Whether Judge Rojas exceeded his judicial authority by issuing a TRO and a writ of injunction that interfered with the HLURB’s decisions and execution processes.
Whether advising counsel to implead the prevailing party during the TRO hearing and still proceeding with injunctive orders constituted gross ignorance of applicable legal principles.

Whether the penalty imposed on Judge Rojas should be limited to a fine as recommended by the OCA, or whether a more severe sanction, such as suspension, was warranted given his previous disciplinary record and the magnitude of his errors.