A.M. No. MTJ-92-728 - Libardos vs. Casar

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-92-728)

Factual Background Leading to the Complaint

The record showed that during the canvassing of election returns, Wilfredo P. Randa, an NPC mayoralty candidate, filed a complaint for Preliminary Injunction with the MCTC of Kolambugan-Maigo, Lanao del Norte, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 19, entitled “Wilfredo P. Randa, candidate for Mayor under NPC against Board of Canvassers, Maigo, Lanao del Norte.” Respondent Casar, on the basis of that petition, issued the order dated 14 May 1992, restraining the COMELEC Board of Canvassers of Maigo from canvassing the election returns of Precinct No. 10-A until either the COMELEC (Manila) or the Regional Trial Court in Iligan City could act on the petition.

Complainant alleged that the restraining order delayed the canvassing, and that canvassing resumed only after the Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao del Norte sent a message to the COMELEC requesting that an order issue directing the Board of Canvassers to disregard the MCTC restraining order. Complainant further claimed that the respondent acted without jurisdiction. She attributed the respondent’s justification to the asserted unavailability of the RTC judges in Iligan City to issue preliminary injunctions, and to the perceived distance from COMELEC in Manila, reasoning that the COMELEC might not receive on time the petitioner’s appeal. Complainant maintained that such justification showed ignorance of the law because, on 14 May 1992, no appeal yet existed from the Board of Canvassers since the election returns had not been canvassed. She also asserted that the governing law expressly allowed appeal only after the Board of Canvassers had rendered a ruling on objections to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns.

Respondent’s Admissions and Justifications

In compliance with the Court’s resolution dated 2 February 1993, respondent submitted his Comment dated 17 March 1993. He admitted that he issued without jurisdiction the questioned order of 14 May 1992. In justification, he presented as a practical consideration that he issued the order as an immediate remedy to prevent bloodshed between contending political parties and their followers—specifically, between complainant’s LDP followers and the NPC opposition—because any serious disturbance would allegedly cause irreparable damages and could revive long-standing communal conflict in the province.

Respondent also argued that complainant’s failure to question or seek reconsideration of the order implied acceptance. He further suggested that complainant’s complaint was motivated to harass him and to block his application for promotion to the RTC.

Court Administrator’s Evaluation

The case was referred on 23 November 1993 to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Court Administrator’s report stated that the complaint should be met with sanction because respondent admitted issuing the order without jurisdiction and because the COMELEC, En Banc Resolution dated May 19, 1992 had already ruled on the matter. The report emphasized that formal investigation was no longer required given respondent’s admission, and it rejected respondent’s defense as unavailing. It underscored that a judge must keep abreast of the latest law and jurisprudence, and that sympathy or fairness does not authorize deliberate transgression of the legal rules governing the controversy.

The report qualified that, for administrative liability grounded on ignorance of the law, reliable evidence must show ill-motivation or corruption. It concluded that the record did not show the questioned order was ill-motivated or corrupt. However, it noted that it could not overlook the fact that respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion by issuing an order restraining canvassing activities despite knowledge that he did not have jurisdiction to act on the petition filed by Wilfredo Randa.

The Court’s Legal Conclusions and Disposition

The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator. It held that respondent’s actuation was unbecoming of a worthy judge because a judge must remain faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, consistent with Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct. While it acknowledged that respondent’s reas

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-92-728)

Mayor Perlita P. Libardos filed a sworn complaint against Judge Abdullah M. Casar for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, arbitrariness, and conduct unbecoming a judge.
The complaint stemmed from a court order issued by respondent in an election-related Special Proceedings matter and challenged his authority to grant the relief he issued.
The Court ultimately found respondent administratively liable for acts done without jurisdiction and attended by grave abuse of discretion.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant Mayor Perlita P. Libardos was a mayoralty candidate in Maigo, Lanao del Norte, in the synchronized national and local elections held on 11 May 1992.
Respondent Judge Abdullah M. Casar presided over the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kolambugan-Maigo, Lanao del Norte.
The complaint was filed on 27 October 1992 before the Court.
In compliance with the Court’s directive, respondent submitted a Comment dated 17 March 1993.
On 23 November 1993, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
The Court then considered the Court Administrator’s report and its concurrence in the recommended conclusions.
Justice Mendoza took no part in the decision.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint was traced to respondent’s order dated 14 May 1992 issued in Special Proceedings No. 19.
Respondent’s order restrained the COMELEC Board of Canvassers of Maigo, Lanao del Norte from canvassing the election returns of Precinct No. 10-A.
The restraint was to last until either the COMELEC or the Regional Trial Court in Iligan City could act on a petition by Wilfredo P. Randa, a mayoralty candidate of the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC).
Complainant alleged that Randa filed a complaint for Preliminary Injunction with the MCTC, presided over by respondent, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 19.
Complainant claimed that respondent issued the restraining order based on Randa’s petition and that the order delayed canvassing.
Complainant asserted that canvassing resumed only after the Provincial Election Supervisor of Lanao del Norte sent a message to the COMELEC (Manila) requesting that an order be issued to disregard respondent’s restraining order.
Complainant further alleged that respondent issued the order despite lacking jurisdiction, relying on the justification that the RTC at Iligan City was not available and that the COMELEC, Manila was far and might not receive the appeal on time.
Complainant argued that the asserted justification reflected ignorance of the law, especially because on 14 May 1992 there was allegedly no appeal yet since canvassing had not been completed.
Complainant invoked a purported statutory scheme that an appeal could be taken only after the Board of Canvassers had rendered a ruling on objections concerning the inclusion or exclusion of election returns.

Court Administrator’s Evaluation

The Court Administrator found for the complainant based on respondent’s admission that the challenged order was issued without jurisdiction.
The report noted that the issue had also been addressed in the COMELEC En Banc Resolution dated May 19, 1992 referenced in the record.
The Court Administrator observed that formal investigation was unnecessary because respondent had admitted the jurisdictional defect.
The report stated that respondent’s defense could not prevail because a judicial officer must keep abreast with c