G.R. No. L-5724 - People vs Balmori

The case is a consolidation of two administrative complaints filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) against Judge Rolando G. Mislang, Presiding Judge of RTC, Pasig City, Branch 167.
The complaints involve the alleged misconduct of Judge Mislang in handling matters connected to a syndicated estafa case and the issuance of injunctive relief with serious procedural and due process defects.

On October 29, 2010, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended a preliminary investigation into Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation and its officers, namely Delfin S. Lee and others, for a fraudulent take-out housing loan scheme.

The scheme involved the use of fake borrowers who were paid to sign blank loan documents submitted to HDMF.
The fraudulent transactions resulted in damages amounting to approximately P6.5 billion suffered by the HDMF.

The first DOJ case (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-10J-00319) was anchored on the estafa complaint against Globe Asiatique and its officials.
The second DOJ case (NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-10L-00363) arose when Lee sought to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of a related civil case filed by Globe Asiatique against HDMF in the Makati RTC.

On November 15, 2010, Lee, together with Globe Asiatique, filed a civil complaint for specific performance and damages against the HDMF before the Makati RTC, raising issues about the right to replace buyers/borrowers under various agreements.
Lee subsequently attempted to invoke a prejudicial question by filing:

A petition on January 27, 2011, seeking the suspension of the criminal proceedings (the second DOJ case) on the basis of issues raised in the civil case.
His petition was denied by the DOJ panel, which explained that the issues in the civil and criminal cases were distinct and involved different parties and subject matters.

On July 28, 2011, Lee filed a Petition for Injunction (with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order or TRO) aimed at suspending:

The parties briefly agreed to submit their memoranda on the disputed issues, following an inquiry by Lee’s counsel on August 5, 2011, concerning a stipulation regarding the existence of the second DOJ case and the related civil case.
Despite the agreement, on August 12, 2011, Lee filed an unverified Urgent Motion for ex-parte resolution seeking the TRO.
Without awaiting the DOJ’s memorandum or holding any hearing, Judge Mislang issued orders on August 16 and August 26, 2011, granting Lee’s TRO applications in both DOJ cases.

Acted with patent disregard of the rules on injunctive relief and prejudicial question.
Exhibited gross ignorance of the law and/or procedural rules by granting the TRO without due process.
Demonstrated clear partiality and bad faith in his handling of Lee’s applications.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the complaints and recommended that Judge Mislang be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, warranting dismissal from service with the forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits) and precluding re-employment in any governmental office.
The case record also cites a history of previous administrative charges and disciplinary sanctions against Judge Mislang, highlighting a pattern of judicial misconduct.

Whether Judge Mislang violated the DOJ’s due process rights by issuing TRO orders:

The issuance of TROs without proper notice, hearing, or adherence to established procedural requirements.
The failure to allow the DOJ an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit before acting on the urgent motions.

The misuse of the doctrine to justify the suspension of criminal proceedings in light of a pending civil case.
Differentiating issues in the Makati civil case from the issues pertinent to the criminal case under investigation.

Whether Judge Mislang’s conduct amounts to gross ignorance of the law and abuse of discretion:

The judge’s actions in granting TROs ex parte and without due process standards.
The repeated disregard of clearly established legal principles and procedural rules, demonstrating bad faith and partiality.

The appropriate remedy and administrative sanctions against recurrent judicial misconduct:

Whether the administrative penalties recommended by the OCA are justified in view of the prior disciplinary history and the gravity of the violations.