G.R. No. 201565 - People vs. Estonilo Sr.

Administrative complaint against Judge Victor A. Canoy, Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 29, Surigao City, filed by Atty. Rene O. Medina and Atty. Clarito Servillas.

Charges: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, Undue Interference, Gross Inefficiency.
Cases involved:

Civil Case No. 7077 (Zenia A. Pagels v. Spouses Reynaldo dela Cruz)
Spec. Proc. No. 7101 (Noel P.E.M. Schellekens v. P/S, Supt. David Y. Ombao, et al.)
Civil Case No. 7065 (Heirs of Matilde Chato Alcaraz v. Philex-Lascogon Mining Corporation, et al.)

June 30, 2009: Zenia Pagels files Petition for Injunction including TRO and preliminary injunction.
Respondent judge granted TRO July 2, 2009; possession transferred July 3, 2009.
Respondent spouses filed Answer and Counterclaim July 13, 2009.
Preliminary injunction granted August 11, 2009 without bond; Motion to Hear Affirmative Defenses pending.
Motion for Reconsideration filed September 1, 2009, hearing reset multiple times up to March 2010.
New judge later revoked preliminary injunction.
Complainants allege gross ignorance for improper relief granted and failure to decide motion timely.

August 19, 2009: Noel Schellekens filed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
August 21, 2009 (holiday): Respondent judge issued Order for release of petitioner on finding unlawful arrest.
Complainants allege gross ignorance, undue interference with immigration functions, violation of judicial conduct (friendly treatment and acting as counsel by questioning).

August 3, 2009: Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant on jurisdiction grounds.
Opposition and amended complaint filed; order denying Motion to Dismiss issued only September 20, 2010.
Complainants contend this shows gross inefficiency and undue delay.

Alleged tardiness and inefficiency in conducting hearings—starting late in violation of Supreme Court Circular.

Questioned complainants' standing as non-parties/litigants in some cases.
Defended issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction as judicious and without bad faith.
Argued motion for reconsideration was not submitted for resolution; delay excused.
Denied improper conduct in Spec. Proc. No. 7101 citing prior dismissal of related complaint.
Attached affidavits explaining reasons for delay and denied inefficiency charge.
Urged dismissal of complaint as baseless and malicious.

Found respondent judge guilty of undue delay but dismissed gross ignorance and misconduct charges for lack of merit.
Held errors were judicial in nature; no bad faith or malice.
Found delay in resolving Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 7065 as undue delay.
Recommended P5,000 fine with stern warning.

Affirmed OCA ruling on complainants' standing.
Found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for improperly issuing preliminary injunction and TRO transferring possession when title disputed.
Identified bad faith due to inconsistencies in orders and failure to require bond.
Ruled respondent judge committed undue delay in resolving Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Dismiss.
Dismissed charges on undue interference, improper conduct in Spec. Proc. No. 7101, and inefficiency, tardiness.
Imposed fine of P30,000 for gross ignorance and undue delay.

Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting TRO and preliminary injunction that transferred possession despite disputing legal title.
Whether respondent judge committed undue delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Dismiss.
Whether respondent judge engaged in gross inefficiency and tardiness in handling hearings.
Whether respondent judge violated judicial conduct by unduly interfering with administrative functions and by acting as counsel during hearing.
Whether complainants have legal interest or standing to file administrative complaint.