Facts:

• An Affidavit-Complaint was filed on July 3, 2002, by Atty. Ma. Cecilia L. Pesayco against Judge William M. Layague of the RTC, Branch 14 in Davao City.
• Pesayco, Chief Legal Counsel for the Philippine National Bank (PNB), accused Judge Layague of:
  • Gross ignorance of the law
  • Issuing an unjust interlocutory order
  • Manifest partiality
  • Unreasonable delay in resolving a pending incident
  • Serious misconduct in official duties
• The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 29,036-2002, initiated by spouses Robert Alan and Nancy Limso against PNB, seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction regarding the redemption period of foreclosed properties.
• The Limso spouses argued that the redemption period should follow Act 3135, allowing a one-year period, instead of Republic Act No. 8791, the General Banking Law of 2000.
• PNB claimed it was not notified of the raffle for the civil case.
• Judge Layague issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on April 10, 2002, without a hearing, but rescinded it on April 16, 2002.
• PNB filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 25, 2002, citing forum shopping and lack of standing by the Limso spouses.
• A hearing occurred, and on May 3, 2002, Judge Layague granted the preliminary injunction.
• After a leave of absence, Judge Layague resolved a Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Limso spouses, which he granted on June 24, 2002, reinstating the preliminary injunction despite PNB's Motion to Inhibit him.
• Pesayco alleged bias and inefficiency due to a delay in resolving PNB's Motion for Reconsideration from June 2001, which remained unresolved for nearly a year.
• Judge Layague defended his actions, citing health issues and a heavy caseload as reasons for the delay.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The court found Judge Layague guilty of inefficiency for not applying Section 4(c), Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, imposing a fine of P5,000.00.
• The court did not find sufficient evidence of manifest partiality or bias in Judge Layague's actions.
...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court determined that Judge Layague was not required to notify PNB of the raffle when the initial complaint was filed without a prayer for a TRO, but he was obligated to do so once the complaint was amended to include such a prayer.
• This failure violated Section 4(c), Rule 58, which mandates notification of the adverse party in cases involving a request ...continue reading