Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255)
Facts:
Spouses Democrito and Olivia Lago v. Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3335-RTJ), January 17, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.The administrative complaint was filed by Spouses Democrito C. Lago and Olivia R. Lago (complainants) against Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. (respondent), then acting presiding and executive judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Gingoog City, charging violations of the Standards of Conduct Prescribed for Judges by Law, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Judicial Conduct arising from respondent’s handling of Civil Case No. 2009-905 filed by Christina M. Obico (plaintiff in the civil case) in RTC, Gingoog City.
On July 2, 2009 Obico filed a complaint seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), preliminary injunction, easement of right-of-way and attorney’s fees, alleging imminent harm from the alleged closing of an access road to her fish farm. Complainants alleged the complaint was never raffled in the multiple-sala RTC and that they were not given notice before respondent issued an ex parte 72-hour TRO on July 7, 2009; the TRO was ordered without requiring a bond. On July 14, 2009 respondent set a summary hearing and purportedly extended the 72-hour TRO toward a 20-day period. In a Resolution dated August 11, 2009 respondent ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on a P100,000 bond. Complainants moved for respondent’s inhibition; respondent denied the motion on October 28, 2009. On November 11, 2009 respondent reduced the bond to P50,000. Complainants filed a motion to hold proceedings in abeyance during their appeal from the inhibition denial; respondent denied it and allowed ex parte presentation of plaintiff’s evidence after complainants failed to appear at pretrial.
In his Comment (February 11, 2010) respondent explained that Branches 27 and 43 lacked regular presiding judges, that he acted as executive judge and acted with urgency, and that his scheduling constraints justified the timing of hearings. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after investigation, issued a Report dated September 13, 2010 recommending re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and finding respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and rules for (1) assuming jurisdiction and issuing a 72-hour TRO without raffle and prior service; (2) setting the summary hearing outside the 72-hour period; (3) effectively...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s acts and omissions in Civil Case No. 2009-905 constitute gross ignorance of the law or procedure warranting disciplinary sanction?
- Did respondent violate the requirements of issuance, extension, and conversion of ex parte temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions under Rule 58, Sections 4 and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)