G.R. No. 123936 - Soriano vs. Court of Appeals

On July 7, 2015, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published an article by columnist Ramon Tulfo titled “What’s Happening to Makati Judges?” alleging irregularities by three Makati judges, including Presiding Judge Joselito C. Villarosa of Branch 66, RTC, Makati City.
The article claimed that Judge Villarosa favored moneyed litigants in commercial cases regardless of merit and was part of a syndicate deciding large commercial cases based on financial considerations rather than legal merits.
Tulfo also asserted that Judge Villarosa had a “history of issuing decisions which were eventually reversed or revoked by the Court of Appeals” and pointed out other irregularities such as the handling of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) in a high-stakes procurement case.

In response to Tulfo’s allegations, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a memorandum on July 8, 2015, directing Judicial Supervisor Atty. Rullyn S. Garcia to investigate the circumstances surrounding the cases mentioned in the article.
Atty. Garcia was tasked to confer with the judges involved, review the case records, and submit the files to the OCA if necessary. However, due to an ongoing judicial audit in Judge Villarosa’s court (May 14–20, 2015), he did not interview Judge Villarosa personally.

The judicial audit report (June 2, 2015) identified several irregularities in Judge Villarosa’s handling of commercial cases:

Failure to transfer pending commercial cases (not in the trial stage) from Branch 66 to Branch 137 as mandated by A.M. No. 03-3-03-SC dated July 8, 2014.
Improper transfer of cases to Branch 149 for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), contrary to the guidelines stating that the original judge should preside over the case through the pre-trial stage.
In Civil Case No. 13-792 (MD.M Logistics Phils., Inc. vs. Unli Logistics, Inc.), the decision was rendered without ruling on the formal offer of evidence, violating Section 5(g), Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
In Civil Case No. 09-524 (Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Albert Y. Pingoy, et al.), the improper consolidation of cases pending in different jurisdictions (Makati City and Cebu City) violated procedural rules regarding consolidation under Rule 31.
In Civil Case No. 11-1059 (Pinoycare Health Systems, Inc., et al. vs. Rex Redentor Berdes, et al.), the issuance of a TRO “until further order” rendered its period of effectivity indefinite, breaching Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which limit TRO duration to 20 days.
In SP M-7574 (Metro Rail Transit Corp., et al. vs. DOTC), an ex parte TRO was issued in violation of R.A. No. 8975, which prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs or preliminary injunctions concerning national government projects.

He admitted knowledge of A.M. No. 03-3-03-SC but justified the delay on the basis of an alleged agreement among judges that cases already in trial should remain in Branch 66.
He cited the tedious process of paginating numerous case volumes as a reason for the delay, noting that such pagination takes two to three days per four-volume case folder.
He further asserted that an alleged letter to the OCA, detailing the agreement, was not acted upon.

On transferring cases to Branch 149 for JDR: Judge Villarosa argued this was standard practice since Branch 149 was the only commercial court authorized to handle JDR when initial procedures failed.
Concerning the ruling on the formal offer of evidence in Civil Case No. 13-792, he maintained that his Decision dated May 18, 2015, already contained the ruling.
On the consolidation of cases pending in different branches: He granted the motion for consolidation for one case even though a separate hearing was still conducted in his sala, contravening procedural requirements.
With respect to the indefinite TRO in Civil Case No. 11-1059, Judge Villarosa reasoned that the TRO was meant to preserve the status quo while the parties were negotiating an amicable settlement.
In defense of the TRO against DOTC, he maintained that he issued a protection order similar to a restraining order pursuant to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules, though this was contrary to the statutory prohibition under R.A. No. 8975.

Whether Judge Villarosa is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of violating Supreme Court directives and procedural rules in the handling of commercial cases.

Did he disregard A.M. No. 03-3-03-SC by failing to transfer all applicable commercial cases from Branch 66 to Branch 137?
Was the transfer of cases to Branch 149 for JDR, without completing the first stage of proceedings, in violation of the established guidelines?

Whether Judge Villarosa’s issuance of a TRO with an indefinite period of effectivity in Civil Case No. 11-1059 and a TRO against the DOTC in SP M-7574 violated the Rules of Court and statutory provisions.

Did the issuance of a TRO “until further orders” contravene the maximum allowable period under Section 5, Rule 58 and Administrative Circular No. 20-95?
Is his justification that the TRO against DOTC was akin to a protection order under the ADR Rules valid in a judicial process that expressly prohibits such orders under R.A. No. 8975?

Whether the consolidation of Civil Case No. 09-524 with a case pending in another branch violated Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court.

Was the consolidation appropriate given that the involved cases were pending in different jurisdictions?