Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250)
Facts:
Rimeo S. Gustilo v. Hon. Ricardo S. Real, Sr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-332-MTJ), February 28, 2001, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Rimeo S. Gustilo ran for punong barangay of Punta Mesa, Manapla in the May 12, 1997 elections and, together with incumbent Weddy C. Libo-on, garnered 819 votes each; the Board of Canvassers broke the tie in favor of Gustilo and proclaimed him duly elected. On May 20, 1997 Libo-on filed an election protest (Civil Case No. 703‑M) in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Victorias‑Manapla seeking recount of ballots in two precincts, a preliminary prohibitory injunction, and damages.
Respondent Hon. Ricardo S. Real, Sr., presiding judge of the MCTC, issued summons and initially set hearing for June 6, 1997 but, after Libo‑on moved to advance, changed the hearing to May 29–30 by Order dated May 28; Gustilo avers he was not furnished a copy of that order. On May 29, 1997 respondent issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and annulled Gustilo’s proclamation; Gustilo claims he was not served with the May 29 Order but obtained copies later and took his oath of office on May 30, 1997.
Gustilo filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Silay City (Special Civil Action No. 1936‑69). On June 5, 1997 the RTC lifted the MCTC TRO and declared respondent’s nullification of the proclamation null and void. Gustilo moved for respondent’s inhibition; on June 11, 1997 respondent denied the motion, heard Libo‑on’s motion for permanent injunction, and issued a second TRO “to maintain the status quo,” an act Gustilo contends reversed the RTC’s order and prevented his participation in the Liga ng mga Barangay elections.
In his comment, respondent admitted issuing the May 29 TRO after hearing Libo‑on’s evidence ex parte but asserted service by registered mail and urged urgency and substantial compliance with due process; he acknowledged his court lacked jurisdiction to annul a proclamation but argued the proclamation was void ab initio and relied on precedents (as he read them) to justify his action. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in an evaluation and recommendation dated November 29, 1999, found respondent’s acts showed bias and a pattern to prevent Gustilo from assuming office and recommended a fine of P20,000.00.
The OCA and the Court evaluated respondent’s issuance of TROs against Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20‑95 (requiring immediate notice and a summary hearing within 24 hours before acting on a TRO), Electoral Code, Art. 242 (exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC over pre‑proclamation controversies...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent commit misconduct by issuing the May 29, 1997 TRO ex parte in violation of Administrative Circular No. 20‑95 and the requirements for injunctive relief?
- Did respondent exceed his jurisdiction and commit actionable misconduct by annulling Gustilo’s proclamation when the power to annul proclamations lies with COMELEC under Article 242 of the Electoral Code?
- Was respondent’s issuance of the June 11, 1997 second TRO, after the RTC of Silay City set aside his earlier order, proper or did...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)