Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-92-728)
Facts:
Mayor Perlita P. Libardos v. Judge Abdullah M. Casar, A.M. No. MTJ-92-728, July 08, 1994, Supreme Court En Banc, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.In the May 11, 1992 synchronized elections in Maigo, Lanao del Norte, Mayor Perlita P. Libardos was the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) mayoralty candidate; Wilfredo P. Randa was the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC) candidate. During the canvass of election returns, Randa filed a petition for preliminary injunction with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kolambugan–Maigo, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 19, praying that the Board of Canvassers of Maigo be restrained from canvassing certain returns.
On May 14, 1992, respondent Judge Abdullah M. Casar issued an order in Special Proceedings No. 19 directing the Board of Canvassers to suspend canvassing the election returns of Precinct No. 10‑A until either the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in Manila or the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Iligan City acted on Randa’s petition. The suspension delayed canvassing; canvassing resumed only after the Provincial Election Supervisor requested COMELEC Manila to issue an order disregarding Judge Casar’s restraining order.
Complainant filed a sworn administrative complaint with this Court on October 27, 1992, charging respondent Judge Casar with gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, arbitrariness and conduct unbecoming a judge for issuing the May 14 order despite lack of jurisdiction and despite the statutory scheme that permits appeal only after the Board of Canvassers has rendered a ruling on objections to election returns. In his Comment (Mar. 17, 1993) respondent admitted issuing the order but justified it as an immediate measure to prevent violence between rival political factions and argued that complainant’s failure to seek reconsideration amounted to acquiescence.
The Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for report and recommendation. The OCA concluded respondent acted without jurisdiction (citing the COMELEC En Banc Resolution of May 19, 1992) and that, although there was no evidence of ill‑motivation or corruption warranting a finding of “ignorance of the law” in the sense of corrupt intent,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Casar have jurisdiction to issue the May 14, 1992 order restraining the Board of Canvassers from canvassing Precinct No. 10‑A?
- Is respondent administratively liable for issuing the May 14, 1992 order without jurisdiction and for grave abuse of discretion and conduct unbecoming a judge?
- Was a formal investigation necessary despite respondent’s ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)