G.R. No. 215746 - Ang Nars Party List vs. Executive Secretary

Ruben N. Salcedo (complainant) filed a verified Letter-Complaint dated August 29, 2008 before the Supreme Court’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Gil G. Bollozos (respondent), Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 21, Cagayan de Oro City.
Charges: Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law in the handling of Special Proceedings No. 2008-009 (Jose Tanmalack, Jr. v. Police Officers of PNP Precinct No. 3 and Insp. Wylen Rojo).

Jose Tanmalack, Jr. filed a verified handwritten petition (dated January 23, 2008) for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo, alleging he was “held in custody” at Agora Police Station 3 after preventing alleged squatters from trespassing on titled property under TCT No. T-162749.
Factual allegations: at around 2:30 p.m. on January 23, 2008, Tanmalack and armed men forcibly entered fenced disputed land, threatened and harassed Salcedo and his workers, destroyed construction materials, and reported the incident to police, resulting in Tanmalack’s detention.

Query received late afternoon of January 23, 2008 on filing procedure for an Amparo petition; absence of Executive Judge led the Clerk to consult 1st and then 2nd Vice Executive Judge.
Because of urgency, novelty of the Amparo Rule and the approaching 5:00 p.m. cutoff, the Docket Clerk and Admin Officer, believing the Clerk out of office, referred the petition by proximity to Judge Bollozos’s sala without raffle.

Upon receipt (stamped 4:45 p.m.), Judge Bollozos issued a Writ of Amparo the same day, directing immediate release of Tanmalack to counsel by 6:00 p.m. and ordering a verified return within five working days.
Tanmalack was released at 6:00 p.m., and on January 25, 2008 a summary hearing was held; P/Insp. Rojo admitted he deprived (or threatened to deprive) Tanmalack of liberty but declined to file a return.

Salcedo alleged the writ was issued with undue haste, bias, partiality (Masonic affiliation), and grave abuse of discretion and rules.
Judge Bollozos’s Comment (March 30, 2009): he acted under Section 3, Par. 2 of Amparo Rule permitting any RTC judge to issue the writ at any time; petition was sufficient in form and substance; the urgency of Friday detention justified immediate action; no bias or partiality influenced his decision.

OCA Report dated April 8, 2010: summarizes facts, finds no irregularity in issuance of Amparo writ, and concludes Judge Bollozos complied with duty in good faith.
Recommendation: Dismiss administrative complaint for lack of merit.

The Court concurred with OCA’s recommendation to dismiss, but held the writ was erroneously issued for a property dispute outside the Amparo Rule’s scope (extralegal killings/enforced disappearances).
Despite the substantive error, no administrative liability arose due to absence of bad faith, malice, dishonesty, or gross ignorance of a well-known rule.

Whether Judge Bollozos committed misconduct or ignorance of the law by issuing a Writ of Amparo in a property dispute not covered by the Amparo Rule.
Whether the issuance of the writ was tainted by bias, partiality or improper influence (Masonic affiliation).
Whether judicial error in issuing an Amparo writ, without fraud, bad faith or gross ignorance, gives rise to administrative liability.