Title
Supreme Court
National Power Corp. vs. Adiong
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060
Decision Date
Jul 27, 2011
Judge Adiong found liable for gross ignorance of law, fined P40,000 for failing to conduct pre-trial and improperly granting execution pending appeal in NPC cases.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2060)

Background of Civil Cases

The complaint is anchored in several civil cases against NPC, notably Civil Case No. 1918-03, where plaintiffs, identified as a collective group of farmers and local residents, allege that NPC's operations of hydroelectric power plants led to ecological and economic devastation in Marawi City and Lanao del Sur. The plaintiffs sought damages and the refund of PPA (Purchase Power Adjustment) collected from consumers.

Allegations Against the Respondent Judge

The administrative complaint accuses Judge Adiong of gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, and conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, specifically citing the issuance of an order in favor of the plaintiffs without first ensuring procedural adherence, including conducting a requisite pre-trial.

Procedural Missteps Cited

Notably, Judge Adiong granted a motion for the release of P640,000,000 in PPA refunds ex-parte and later issued a resolution mandating NPC to refund amounts without conducting a proper pre-trial conference. Despite NPC's requests for reconsideration, Judge Adiong maintained his position, claiming that hearings had thoroughly provided NPC the opportunity to present its evidence.

Multiple Cases and Bias Allegations

The complaint details that multiple other cases against NPC also presided by Judge Adiong were marked by similar issues of procedural mismanagement, including the granting of motions for execution pending appeal without substantiated justification. The allegations contend that this behavior demonstrates a pattern of bias towards the plaintiffs, suggesting a lack of impartiality.

Judge Adiong's Defense

In his defense, Judge Adiong argues that he conducted necessary hearings and that NPC failed to raise concerns about the lack of pre-trial in a timely manner. He also contends that he had valid reasons for issuing orders for execution pending appeal based on the financial distress claimed by plaintiffs, even if such claims were only supported by personal testimonies.

Investigative Findings

After referral to the Court of Appeals, an investigation led by Justice Ruben C. Ayson concluded that Judge Adiong was administratively liable, identifying failures to adhere to core procedural rules, such as the mandatory requirement for conducting pre-trial conferences. The distinction was made that a judge is not held administratively liable for every error but may face consequences for gross ignorance of elementary legal principles.

Conclusion on Administrative Responsibility

The Investigating Justice's findings articulated that Judge Adiong’s failures constituted gross ignora

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.