G.R. No. 167745 - Llamzon vs. Logronio

Petitioner Miguel M. Llamzon, an Enterprise Service Officer III at the Industrial Relations Unit of the Bataan Economic Zone, was formally charged with dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service.
Allegations centered on Llamzon billing overtime fees for fuel unloading on 28 February 2000 and 20 March 2000 to Edison (Bataan) Cogeneration Corporation, despite knowing that the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) had discontinued such billing as of 17 December 1999.

Llamzon filed his answer denying the charges and requested a formal investigation as well as the transfer of venue to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office in San Fernando, Pampanga; his request was denied.
The administrative investigation was conducted by the PEZA Central Board of Inquiry, Investigation and Discipline (PEZA-CBIID).
During the investigation, petitioner sought to have the PNP Crime Laboratory examine the billing documents, a request which was rejected by PEZA-CBIID on the ground that a prior finding by the National Bureau of Investigation already confirmed the signatures as his own.

Filing of the Civil Complaint and Issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

Feeling aggrieved, Llamzon filed a complaint on 17 September 2002 seeking damages and requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to protect his right to present witnesses and secure compulsory process in the administrative investigation.
On the same day, RTC, Branch 4, Balanga, Bataan, under Judge Benjamin Vianzon, issued a TRO for twenty (20) days to maintain and preserve the status quo.
A hearing for a preliminary injunction was scheduled, but respondents contested the TRO on the grounds of non-holding of a summary hearing and the lack of demonstration of extreme urgency.

Respondents moved to lift the TRO, but their motion was denied by Judge Vianzon.
Following the TRO, respondents filed a complaint against Judge Vianzon alleging incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
Respondents also sought the judge’s inhibition in Civil Case No. 565-ML, which was granted on 21 October 2002.
Despite the inhibition, petitioner filed motions including one to maintain the status quo – resulting in the 2 December 2002 status quo order – and another motion for reconsideration regarding the inhibition order and for citing him in contempt for resuming the administrative investigation.
On 15 November 2002, Judge Vianzon clarified that he had recalled his order of inhibition and would proceed to try the case, asserting that Branch 4, being a single-sala court, could not continue with inhibition pending reassignment.
On 11 December 2002, Judge Vianzon issued an order denying respondents’ motion to dismiss the case.

Respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals, criticizing Judge Vianzon’s conduct in:

Conducting the proceedings.
Recalling his earlier order of inhibition.
Issuing a 20-day TRO and a subsequent status quo order in disregard of procedural limits under Section 5, Rule 58.

The Court of Appeals found the TRO and the status quo order to be improperly issued:

It held that the TRO must be limited to 72 hours under cases of extreme urgency and only extended after a summary hearing, not unilaterally for 20 days.
It determined that the status quo order – effectively an indefinite TRO – was similarly in violation of the Rules of Court.

While the appellate court annulled and set aside the 2 December 2002 status quo order, it dismissed the petition regarding the 11 December 2002 order denying the motion to dismiss.
Petitioner sought partial reconsideration on the propriety of the TRO and status quo order, as well as alleged defects in respondents’ petition, which the Court of Appeals ultimately denied.

Whether Judge Vianzon’s issuance of a 20-day ex parte TRO was proper under Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which prescribes a 72-hour period as the norm in cases of extreme urgency.
Whether the subsequent status quo order, effectively extending the TRO indefinitely, was valid considering the limitations imposed by the Rules of Court.
Whether it was proper for Judge Vianzon to recall his earlier order of inhibition and proceed with the trial, given that the order of inhibition should have precluded his further participation in the proceedings until a proper judicial resolution.
Whether the alleged defects in respondents’ petition before the Court of Appeals, such as failure to attach certain certified copies, omission in addressing particular orders, and procedural deficiencies (e.g., lack of affidavit of service), should have warranted outright dismissal of their petition.