A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423 - Ortega, Jr. vs. Dacara

The case is an administrative complaint filed by Santiago D. Ortega, Jr. (complainant) against Judge Rogelio Ll. Dacara (respondent), alleging gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence.
The administrative complaint arose from the denial of a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in a separate case for damages.

On 18 January 2013, the Siramag Fishing Corporation (SFC) and its president, Santiago D. Ortega, Jr., filed a case for damages with an application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
The injunction was sought to compel the renewal of the Commercial Fishing Vessel/Gear License of the vessel F/V “Mercy Cecilia-I.”
The case was raffled to RTC-Branch 37 in Iriga City, Camarines Sur, where Judge Dacara was presiding.
An Order dated 22 April 2013 by the respondent judge denied the issuance of the writ, basing his decision on:

The plaintiffs’ failure to show a clear and inestimable right to be protected;
The assertion that preliminary injunctions (and by extension, writs of preliminary mandatory injunctions) are barred under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC and Presidential Decree No. 605;
The claim that RTC-Branch 37 lacked territorial jurisdiction over the defendants, whose office was in the Municipality of Pili.

The terms “writ of preliminary injunction” and “writ of preliminary mandatory injunction” should not be conflated, and the legal prohibition under A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC and PD 605 was misapplied;
RTC-Branch 37 had jurisdiction over the defendants since the Fifth Judicial Region, which includes the Municipality of Pili, falls within its enforcement area;
A judge’s cognizance of the case was improper only if the title expressly indicated an environmental matter—an issue later remedied by transferring the case to RTC-Branch 35, a designated environmental court.

Reliance on Section 10, Rule 2 of A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC and Section 1 of PD 605 to justify his denial of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction;
The belief that his ruling regarding jurisdiction was based on his understanding that RTC-Branch 37’s territorial jurisdiction was limited to Iriga City and certain nearby municipalities (excluding Pili);
Assertion that his decision was not influenced by any malice, even if it involved an error of judgment regarding jurisdiction.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a Report on 27 February 2015 finding the respondent judge liable for gross ignorance of the law, primarily due to his erroneous statement denying jurisdiction over the defendants.
The OCA noted that although the respondent judge might have used the term “writ of preliminary injunction” loosely, his elucidation of the requirements under Rule 58 was not fundamentally mistaken.
The OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and imposed a fine of P20,000 to be deducted from his retirement benefits or leave credits.
Notably, the case was eventually transferred to RTC-Branch 35 due to its environmental law aspects, a transfer occurring after the respondent judge communicated that the case involved environmental issues.

Whether Judge Dacara’s denial of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was legally proper even if he erred in interpreting the territorial jurisdiction of RTC-Branch 37.

The central issue is if the respondent judge’s reliance on PD 605 and A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC to bar the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was correct.
Whether the alleged misinterpretation of the territorial jurisdiction under BP 129, particularly the exclusion of the Municipality of Pili, affected the propriety of his decision.

Whether a judicial error in jurisdiction or the misapplication of legal terminology (between writ of preliminary injunction and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction) amounts to gross ignorance of the law or gross inexcusable negligence.

The matter examines the threshold for administrative liability of judges, specifically if an error of judgment without malice or bad faith can constitute such liability.

Whether the improper assignment of the case, given its environmental context hinted by the need for an injunction concerning a fishing vessel license, should have precluded the respondent from taking cognizance in a non-designated environmental court.