Title
Philippine Investment Two , Inc. vs. Mendoza
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2538
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2018
PI TWO contested a TRO extension and bond substitution by Judge Mendoza, who was fined P25,000 for gross ignorance of law, violating procedural rules.
judge
summons
fine

Case Summary (G.R. No. 181430)

Factual Background

PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT TWO (SPV-AMC), INCORPORATED acquired a parcel of land from the Development Bank of the Philippines that became the subject of TCT No. T-374946 (Subject Property). PI TWO obtained an ex-parte writ of possession process before Branch 23, RTC, Roxas, Isabela. The Heirs of Wilson Nuesa filed a Quieting of Title case on August 10, 2017, alleging that the Subject Property vested in their father and that the Deed of Absolute Sale to Adelaine Samonte was null for lack of consideration and prohibited by law, and that subsequent foreclosure and conveyances were void.

Proceedings in the Quieting of Title Case

The Quieting of Title complaint was amended and admitted on September 18, 2017, and the trial court, by respondent Judge Mendoza, ordered issuance of a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO) upon the posting of a P500,000 bond. The TRO was issued September 20, 2017 and received by the sheriff on September 22, 2017. A summary hearing on the extension of the TRO was set for September 25, 2017. The trial court later issued a writ of preliminary injunction dated October 12, 2017 and entered an order extending the TRO to October 12, 2017. PI TWO raised objections and alleged it had not been properly served with summons until October 18, 2017.

Orders Assailed in the Administrative Complaint

PI TWO filed an administrative complaint accusing respondent Judge Mendoza of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment, challenging specifically the September 20, 2017 TRO, the September 25, 2017 order extending the TRO to October 12, 2017, and the November 29, 2017 order granting the Heirs of Nuesa’s Motion to Substitute Cash Bond with an Injunction Bond.

Respondent’s Comment and Defense

Respondent Judge Mendoza explained that he issued the 72-hour TRO because he honestly believed the situation presented extreme urgency and that the Heirs of Nuesa would suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury as possessors. He maintained that a summary hearing on September 25, 2017 established sufficient evidence to extend the TRO until October 12, 2017, and he denied that he had decided the merits of the underlying claim. He admitted overlooking that the Motion to Substitute Bond was scheduled for hearing but asserted that the substitution caused no prejudice.

OCA Report and Recommendation

The Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent Judge Mendoza committed missteps. The OCA concluded that the judge failed to ensure service of summons on PI TWO after issuance of the 72-hour TRO, that the summary hearing for extension of the TRO was not conducted within the seventy-two hour period as required by Rule 58, Sec. 5, and that the judge miscomputed the twenty-day life of the TRO by extending it to October 12, 2017 instead of to October 10, 2017. The OCA recommended a finding of guilt for gross ignorance of the law and a fine of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) with a stern warning.

Issues Presented

The controlling questions were whether respondent Judge Mendoza violated the mandatory procedural requirements governing ex parte TROs and their extension under Rule 58, Secs. 4 and 5 and Administrative Circular No. 20-95, whether the failure to effect service and to hold the summary hearing within the seventy-two hour period and the extension beyond twenty days constituted gross ignorance of the law, and whether the substitution of the cash bond with a surety bond without waiting for the scheduled hearing compounded the procedural infirmities.

The Court’s Legal Analysis

The Court agreed with the OCA that the procedural rules governing TROs are elementary and mandatory. The Court reiterated that a judge must possess proficiency in law and maintain competence, citing Sps. Logo v. Judge Abul, Jr., 654 Phil. 479, 491 (2011), and other authorities. The Court explained that a seventy-two hour ex parte TRO issued under Rule 58, Sec. 5 must be followed immediately by service of summons and a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO should be extended, and that the total period of a TRO, including the seventy-two hours, shall not exceed twenty days. The Court found that the prior summons received by the sheriff was rendered ineffective after the complaint was amended and admitted on September 18, 2017; therefore the judge’s reliance on service previously received by the sheriff did not satisfy the rule that the adverse party be immediately served after the issuance of the seventy-two hour TRO. The Court also held that setting the summary hearing for September 25, 2017

...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.

About Privacy Terms