Title
Department of Justice vs. Mislang
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369, RTJ-14-2372
Decision Date
Jul 26, 2016
Judge Mislang dismissed for gross ignorance of law, issuing TROs without due process, favoring Delfin S. Lee in syndicated estafa case.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369, RTJ-14-2372)

Factual Background

The case originates from allegations against Delfin S. Lee and other officers of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation for the crime of syndicated estafa constituting economic sabotage due to fraudulent housing loan applications. The investigation was prompted by a complaint filed by HDMF, which reported an estimated loss of P6.5 billion due to loans taken out under false pretenses. Subsequent legal actions included a civil suit by Lee against HDMF in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, as well as an ongoing preliminary investigation by the DoJ into the criminal complaints against Lee.

Procedural History

Lee sought to suspend the DoJ's proceedings based on his civil suit's alleged prejudicial questions but was denied by the DoJ panel. Following this denial, Lee filed a Petition for Injunction with Judge Mislang, who issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) against the DoJ, effectively preventing the filing of information against Lee. This prompted the filing of administrative complaints by both the DoJ and HDMF against Judge Mislang, based on claims of gross ignorance of the law and partiality in his judicial conduct.

Court Findings and Ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the findings and recommendations made by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). It held that Judge Mislang's actions in issuing the TROs without proper notice or hearing represented a clear violation of the DoJ's right to due process. The Court noted that Judge Mislang exhibited a lack of knowledge of fundamental legal principles regarding prejudicial questions and the proper procedure for temporary restraining orders.

Legal Analysis of Gross Ignorance of the Law

It was determined that Judge Mislang's conduct met the threshold for gross ignorance of the law, which constitutes a serious charge under judicial conduct standards. The Court emphasized that judges must possess an in-depth understanding of legal principles and procedural rules, asserting that ignorance or failure to apply established laws is grounds for administrative sanction.

Repeat Violations and Administrative Penalties

The Court took into account Judge Mislang's prior history of administrative charges and violations, suggesting a pattern of behavior that undermined public trust in the ju

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.