A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369, RTJ-14-2372 - Department of Justice vs. Mislang

In 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a preliminary investigation against Delfin S. Lee and other officers of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation for allegedly obtaining fraudulent loans on behalf of fake borrowers from the Pag-IBIG Fund/Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), causing damages of approximately P6.5-billion (the 1st DOJ case).
Simultaneously, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Anti-Graft Division recommended filing criminal charges for syndicated estafa amounting to economic sabotage against Lee and his associates, which was docketed as the 2nd DOJ case.

Lee, together with Globe Asiatique, filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against HDMF before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City concerning their housing loan program agreements.
Subsequently, Lee filed an injunction case before the RTC of Pasig City, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) to suspend proceedings in the 2nd DOJ case on the ground that the civil case raised a prejudicial question.

Acting as the presiding judge in the injunction case, Petitioner Rolando G. Mislang granted a TRO on August 16, 2011 in favor of Lee.
On August 25, 2011, Lee amended his petition to enjoin the DOJ from filing an information in the 1st DOJ case; despite DOJ’s opposition, the petitioner granted another TRO on August 26, 2011.
Petitioner later converted the August 26 TRO into a writ of preliminary injunction on September 5, 2011.
The DOJ assailed this writ before the Court of Appeals (CA), which annulled the order on April 16, 2012 for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.

On April 26, 2012, Lee sought a status quo order against the DOJ, relying on a supervening favorable summary judgment in the specific performance case.
On the same day, as the DOJ proceeded with filing the Information, Lee filed a supplemental motion to enjoin the Office of the Clerk of Court from raffling the criminal case, leading the petitioner to issue a status quo order on April 27, 2012.

Both HDMF and the DOJ alleged that petitioner’s actions, particularly the issuance of TROs, the writ of preliminary injunction, and the status quo order, constituted Gross Ignorance of the Law.
Previously, the petitioner had been penalized in earlier administrative cases—first in A.M. No. RTJ-08-2104 and later in A.M. No. RTJ-15-2434—for similar misconduct.

On September 22, 2021, in the wake of repeated disciplinary infractions and subsequent motions for reconsideration (with the first three denied and the fourth noted without action), petitioner filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency.
In his petition, petitioner sought to be allowed to retire with full benefits and have his disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality lifted.
He cited his long and satisfactory service record, mounting indebtedness, and ailing health as grounds for his request, while alternatively maintaining his innocence and alleging political/personal motivation behind his administrative cases.

Does petitioner’s clemency petition establish a prima facie case showing genuine remorse and reformation?
Is there compelling evidence that the petitioner, despite his repeated disregard for well-established legal rules, has sufficiently reformed to warrant clemency?
How does the application of the doctrine of prejudicial question and petition’s timeliness affect the plea for clemency given the judicial precedents?