A.M. No. RTJ-04-1853 - Dela Cruz vs. Villalon-Pornillos

In September 1994, the Provincial Government of Bulacan, represented by Engr. Castro (the Provincial Services Officer), filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Atty. Francisco Galman-Cruz and Jimmy Legaspi in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Malolos, Bulacan.
Due to a Motion for Inhibition filed by defendant Galman-Cruz against the presiding judge of the MTC, the case was reassigned to Hon. Ester R. Chua-Yu by the Executive Judge through Administrative Order No. 37-95.

On September 5, 1997, the MTC rendered a judgment against Galman-Cruz ordering that he vacate the leased premises and surrender possession thereof, among other reliefs.
The decision from the MTC was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which on March 3, 1999, affirmed the judgment in toto.
Galman-Cruz filed a petition for review with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals.
On February 28, 2000, the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the adjudicated decision; subsequently, the decision became final and executory on November 20, 2000.

On August 27, 2001, the MTC issued an Order of Execution, which was followed by defendant Galman-Cruz filing a Motion for Reconsideration that was denied on October 4, 2001.
In a bid to forestall the execution of the final judgment, Galman-Cruz filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with a request for a TRO and preliminary injunction in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan.
The petition, raffled to Branch 19 of the RTC, was denied.
After additional motions and an alias Writ of Demolition was issued, Galman-Cruz once more sought judicial relief by filing a Petition for Certiorari (challenging the Order of Demolition) with a Prayer for the issuance of a TRO and a preliminary injunction, which was raffled to Branch 10, presided over by Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos.

On November 7, 2002, Judge Villalon-Pornillos issued a TRO and subsequently a preliminary injunction, effectively restraining the implementation of the final and executory MTC decision.
The issuance of the TRO was executed on the same day the petition was received, without a preceding summary hearing or proper notice to the adverse party, as mandated by procedural rules and guidelines.
Governor Josefina M. Dela Cruz, acting as complainant, filed an administrative complaint on December 16, 2002, alleging that by granting the TRO without a hearing, the respondent judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law and abused her authority.

In her Comment dated March 26, 2003, Judge Villalon-Pornillos defended her issuance of the TRO by arguing that it was necessary to prevent the alleged illegal demolition of properties (the Flying A Hotel and the Pinoy Gas Station) belonging to defendant Galman-Cruz.
She maintained that her actions were based on the urgent need to address the questionable Writ of Demolition, which she contended arose from an equally ineffective Writ of Execution.
Additionally, in her defense, the judge contended that unresolved vital issues in the original case (previously heard by Judge Chua-Yu) warranted her interference, thereby justifying the ex parte issuance of the TRO.
In her subsequent explanation, the judge cited the long-amended Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines implementing the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 as the legal basis for her decision.

Governor Dela Cruz’s complaint centered not on the preliminary injunction but on the ex parte issuance of the TRO, which allegedly violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 (now embodied in Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) mandates that:

An application for a TRO must be acted upon only after a summary hearing where all parties are notified and heard.
A TRO issued ex parte is permissible only in cases of extreme urgency and must be followed by an immediate summary hearing within prescribed time limits.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that by issuing the TRO without adhering to these procedural safeguards, Judge Villalon-Pornillos gravely abused her discretion and ignored settled legal requirements.
Ultimately, the respondent judge was penalized by a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for her failure to comply with the said administrative circular, with a stern warning against future similar conduct.

Whether the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by Judge Villalon-Pornillos violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by being issued ex parte without the requisite summary hearing and notice to all parties.
Whether the issuance of the TRO improperly nullified the final and executory judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, thereby constituting an abuse of judicial discretion and gross ignorance of the law.
Whether the respondent judge’s actions, in light of established procedural requirements, warrant the imposition of a penalty for failing to adhere to the judicial guidelines designed to prevent precipitous TRO issuances.