Title
Lagcao vs. Gako, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1840
Decision Date
Aug 2, 2007
Landowners won ejectment case; settlers formed association, city passed ordinances for housing. Judge defied higher court, issued TRO; fined for grave abuse of authority.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1840)

Factual Background

The Lagcao siblings are the registered owners of Lot No. 1029, a parcel of land with an area of 4,048 square meters located in Capitol Hills, Cebu City. They filed an ejectment case against unauthorized settlers occupying the land in 1997. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ruled in favor of the Lagcaos, which decision was upheld by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Following the issuance of a writ of execution and subsequent order for the demolition of structures belonging to the settlers in February 1999, the MTCC suspended the demolition for 120 days upon a humanitarian request from the then-City Mayor to seek a relocation site for the settlers.

Legislative Developments

During the suspension period, the settlers formed the Green Pasture Homeowners Association, Inc. The Cebu City Sangguniang Panlungsod passed Ordinance No. 1772, designating Lot No. 1029 as a socialized housing site under the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279). Subsequently, on August 2, 2000, Ordinance No. 1843 authorized the expropriation of the lot. The association then filed a complaint in the RTC against the Lagcao siblings seeking to enjoin their eviction.

Judicial Proceedings and Injunction

Respondent Judge Gako granted a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the association on March 27, 2000, later denying the Lagcaos' motion for reconsideration. This led to a petition for certiorari filed by the Lagcaos with the Court of Appeals (CA), which later annulled the respondent's rulings on November 19, 2001, citing grave abuse of discretion for issuing the writ in absence of a clear legal right.

Subsequent Judicial Mismanagement

Despite the CA decision, Judge Gako issued a temporary restraining order on February 26, 2002, preventing the demolition that was scheduled that day. The association subsequently filed an amended complaint citing new developments, including the alleged sale of Lot No. 1029 to the association. Judge Gako denied their application for another writ of preliminary injunction on March 15, 2002, and later voluntarily inhibited himself from the case.

Complaints Against Respondent

The Lagcaos filed a complaint against Judge Gako for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and grave misconduct regarding his issuance of the preliminary injunction and the temporary restraining order, claiming he disregarded a final judgment in favor of the Lagcaos.

Legal Analysis and Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the matter, ruling that the issuance of Ordinance No. 1772 could constitute a supervening event, potentially justifying an injunction against the execution of the MTCC's final decision under certain equitable circumstances. The OCA

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.