Title
Gomos vs. Adiong
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1863
Decision Date
Oct 22, 2004
Judge Adiong found guilty of gross ignorance, abuse of authority, and violating due process by issuing improper injunctions, exceeding jurisdiction, and contempt orders without cause.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1863)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Initiation of the Case
    • Complainants:
      • Atty. Jose Alfonso M. Gomos, acting as counsel for the Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE).
      • Dr. Roberto T. Borromeo, President of FAPE.
    • Respondent:
      • Judge Santos B. Adiong, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Marawi City.
    • Underlying Dispute:
      • A Special Civil Action No. 690-01 for mandamus was filed by Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum against FAPE.
      • The petition alleged that FAPE was obligated to release a subsidy amounting to P1,845,040.00 to Pacasum College, Inc. under the Educational Service Program of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS).
      • The failure to release such funds allegedly left the school unable to fully pay its teachers’ salaries for three months.
  • Issuance of Orders and Procedural Developments
    • On February 26, 2001:
      • The respondent judge granted an application for a preliminary mandatory injunction upon the posting of a surety or property bond amounting to P200,000.00, on the very day the Special Civil Action No. 690-01 was filed.
      • Subsequently, on the same day, an order was issued directing FAPE’s president, Dr. Roberto T. Borromeo, to prepare and issue a check for P1,845,040.00 payable to Saripada Ali Pacasum.
    • Service of Summons and Further Legal Motions:
      • On February 28, 2001, summons and a copy of the petition were served on FAPE through its president by Sheriff Acmad Alipanto.
      • On March 5, 2001, FAPE filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Court of Appeals challenging the orders dated February 26, 2001.
        • FAPE contended that an ongoing ownership dispute involving Pacasum College precluded the release of funds.
ii. The petition argued that the RTC of Marawi City lacked jurisdiction since FAPE’s principal office was in Makati City, outside its territorial jurisdiction.
  • FAPE further sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Saripada Ali Pacasum for alleged harassment of its employees.
  • Subsequent Developments and Contempt Proceedings
    • On March 9, 2001:
      • An order (issued on an allegedly ex parte motion by Saripada Ali Pacasum) reiterated the earlier orders with a warning that noncompliance would result in contempt proceedings.
    • On March 13-14, 2001:
      • Saripada Ali Pacasum, together with law enforcement, proceeded with actions including serving a warrant of arrest upon Dr. Borromeo.
      • Despite a TRO issued by the Court of Appeals on March 14, 2001, the respondent judge ordered the arrest of Dr. Borromeo and several FAPE employees.
        • Two FAPE employees, Evangeline Domondon and Nenita Torres, were arrested and detained.
  • Administrative Complaints and Subsequent Findings
    • Complainant filings:
      • A letter complaint was filed by Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum on March 12, 2001, charging the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and misconduct.
      • A similar complaint was filed on March 22, 2001, by Atty. Jose Gomos alleging violation of hearing, notice, and jurisdictional norms.
    • Comment and Justification by the Respondent Judge:
      • The respondent judge asserted that his actions were in response to Special Civil Action No. 690-10 being raffled to his court.
      • He claimed that the pleadings necessitated an expedited resolution and maintained that subsequent proceedings had rendered the pending issues moot.
    • Findings by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):
      • The OCA concluded that the respondent judge acted with gross ignorance of the law, oppression, and abuse of authority.
      • Specific violations included:
        • Issuing a preliminary injunction without proper notice and hearing, contrary to Sections 4(c) and 5 of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ii. Exercising jurisdiction beyond the territorial limits by ordering relief in Makati City. iii. Summarily citing FAPE’s president and employees for contempt without affording due process (in contravention of Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure).
  • Administrative recommendations were made, including re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and imposing a penalty.
  • Manifestations and Non-Manifestations:
    • Complainants confirmed their willingness to submit the case for decision based on pleadings, while the respondent judge failed to file any manifestation, prompting the court to decide without his input.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional Overreach
    • Whether the respondent judge possessed proper territorial jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction against FAPE, whose principal office was located in Makati City (outside the 12th judicial region).
    • Whether the issuance of the writ on the same day that the Special Civil Action was filed (without prior notice) constituted an abuse of judicial power.
  • Due Process and Procedural Violations
    • Whether the respondent judge violated the mandatory notice and hearing requirements under Sections 4(c) and 5 of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by issuing the injunction ex parte.
    • Whether the summary citation and arrest of FAPE’s employees for contempt, without giving them the opportunity to be heard as required by Section 3, Rule 71 of the same rules, violated due process.
  • Abuse of Contempt Power
    • Whether the respondent’s summarily punishing FAPE’s president and employees, and ordering their arrest despite an existing TRO from the Court of Appeals, demonstrated a grave abuse of judicial authority.
  • Appropriate Sanction and Penalty
    • Given the respondent judge’s previous sanctions for similar transgressions, whether a suspension from office (as opposed to merely a fine) was a proportionate penalty for the acts committed.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms