G.R. No. 146511 - Ang vs. Associated Bank

Complainants: Doroteo, Diosdado, and Ursula Lagcao, who are the registered owners of Lot No. 1029, a 4,048 sq. m. parcel of land located in Capitol Hills, Cebu City.
Respondent: Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 5.

In 1997, complainants initiated an ejectment case against “settlers” occupying the lot.
The case was filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cebu City, Branch 1, and docketed as Civil Case No. 38130.
In April 1998, the MTCC issued a decision in favor of the complainants, ordering the settlers to vacate the lot, which was later affirmed by the RTC of Cebu.
A writ of execution was issued in January 1999, followed by an order for demolition in February 1999.
The demolition order was suspended on February 22, 1999, for 120 days in response to a written request from then City Mayor Alvin B. Garcia based on humanitarian grounds.

During the deferment of the demolition order, the occupying “settlers” organized themselves and formed a non-stock corporation known as the Green Pasture Homeowners Association, Inc.
This association later became a key party in subsequent proceedings related to Lot No. 1029.

On June 30, 1999, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Cebu City enacted Ordinance No. 1772, which declared Lot No. 1029 a “Socialized Housing Site” in line with the Urban Development and Housing Act (RA 7279).
Ordinance No. 1843, approved on August 2, 2000, authorized the expropriation of the same lot.

In response to the conversion of the lot’s status, the association filed a complaint for injunction, prohibition, and damages in the RTC of Cebu.
The relief sought included the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin complainants and the MTCC from enforcing the ejectment and demolition orders.
On March 27, 2000, Judge Gako granted the writ of preliminary injunction.
Complainants’ motion for reconsideration of the injunction was denied on May 22, 2000.
The Court of Appeals, in its November 19, 2001 decision, set aside the writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that the injunction was issued in the absence of a clear legal right of the association.

Following the CA decision, another writ of demolition was issued; however, on February 26, 2002, Judge Gako issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that halted the scheduled demolition.
Meanwhile, the association filed an amended complaint on February 18, 2002, alleging a supervening event—the subsequent sale of Lot No. 1029 to the association—which they argued made the enforcement of the earlier MTCC decision inequitable.
The association applied for another writ of preliminary injunction, which was ultimately denied by Judge Gako on March 15, 2002.
On March 18, 2002, Judge Gako voluntarily inhibited himself from further involvement in the case.

Complainants charged Judge Gako with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and grave misconduct for:

Issuing the writ of preliminary injunction in his March 27, 2000 resolution despite the MTCC’s final and executory judgment.
Issuing a TRO in his February 26, 2002 order that defied the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

In his defense, Judge Gako claimed that his actions were justified by the existence of City Ordinance No. 1772, which converted the lot into a socialized housing site and made the association’s members potential beneficiaries under RA 7279.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its evaluation dated October 29, 2003, acknowledged that the ordinances may constitute supervening events justifying the suspension of the execution of a final judgment but nevertheless held him administratively liable for issuing the TRO.

In Joselito Rallos, et al. vs. Judge Ireneo Gako, where he was fined for various irregularities.
In Ronaldo B. Zamora vs. Judge Ireneo Gako, where he was held guilty of gross ignorance of the law and suspended for three months.

These prior cases, along with the present instance, mark repeated patterns of judicial misapplications that call into question his adherence to established legal standards and procedures.

Whether the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by Judge Gako in March 2000 was justified given the existence of a final and executory MTCC judgment and whether the alleged supervening events (i.e., the passage of City Ordinance No. 1772 and Ordinance No. 1843) could legally suspend the execution of that judgment.

Whether the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on February 26, 2002 in defiance of the Court of Appeals’ ruling amounts to grave abuse of authority by Judge Gako.

Whether Judge Gako’s actions, specifically the issuance of the TRO, constitute gross ignorance of the law or, at most, a misapplication of judicial rules in light of existing jurisprudence and statutory mandates.

Whether the cumulative conduct of the respondent, including previous disciplinary cases, justifies the imposition of administrative sanctions (in the form of a fine and potential suspension) despite his defense based on social justice considerations under RA 7279.