Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538)
Facts:
Philippine Investment Two (SPV‑AMC), Incorporated, represented by Nicanor M. Collado v. Hon. Bernabe B. Mendoza, Presiding Judge, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Isabela, A.M. No. RTJ‑18‑2538 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17‑4782‑RTJ), November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Complainant PI TWO is a special purpose vehicle that acquired a parcel of land (the Subject Property) from the Development Bank of the Philippines, title later appearing as TCT No. T‑374946. In April 2015 PI TWO filed an ex parte petition for a writ of possession before Branch 23, RTC, Roxas, Isabela; the petition was granted and, on June 27, 2017, the Clerk of Court issued a writ of possession in favor of PI TWO.
On August 10, 2017, the Heirs of Wilson Nuesa filed a complaint for quieting of title and related reliefs against Adelaine Samonte, PI TWO, DBP and others (Civil Case No. 23‑184‑17). The heirs alleged that the title underlying the DBP‘s foreclosure, and thus PI TWO’s acquisition, was void. The clerk issued summons on August 25, 2017; the heirs thereafter informed the sheriff they would avail of terceria, and the sheriff notified PI TWO that a third‑party claim had been asserted and that PI TWO should post a bond under Section 16, Rule 39.
On September 18, 2017, respondent Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza (presiding judge) admitted the amended complaint and directed issuance of a 72‑hour temporary restraining order (TRO) upon the posting of a P500,000 bond by the heirs. On September 20, 2017, the court issued the TRO, which the sheriff received on September 22, 2017. The judge set a summary hearing for extension of the TRO on September 25, 2017, and then issued an order extending the TRO’s validity until October 12, 2017.
PI TWO filed an ex abundanti ad cautelam manifestation on October 4, 2017, contesting jurisdiction and the extension of the TRO. PI TWO was served with summons only on October 18, 2017; a writ of preliminary injunction dated October 12, 2017 was received by PI TWO on October 24. The heirs later moved (November 27, 2017) to substitute a cash bond with an injunction bond; the hearing was set for December 7, 2017 but respondent Judge Mendoza granted the motion in an order dated November 29, 2017.
PI TWO filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on December 21, 2017, charging respondent Judge Mendoza with gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment for his rulings issuing, extending and later managing the TRO and for granting the substitution of bond. The OCA required a comment; respondent Judge Mendoza filed a comment on March 16, 2018, explaining he acted in perceived good faith given claimed urgency and that the bond substitution was an oversight without prejudice to the parties.
In its June 20, 2018 Report and Recommendation, the OCA found missteps: the judge failed to ensure immediate service of summons and the complaint upon the adverse party after issuing the 72‑hour TRO; he did not hold the statutorily‑required summary h...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Mendoza commit gross ignorance of the law and knowingly render an unjust judgment by issuing, extending, and managing the temporary restraining order and by granting the substitution of bond in Civil Case No. 23‑184‑17?
- If guilty, what administrative sanc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)