A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255 - Spouses Lago vs. Abul, Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255)

Factual Background and Proceedings in the Civil Case

Complainants claimed that, although Obico’s civil complaint with a prayer for TRO was filed on July 2, 2009, the case was not raffled and no notice of raffle was served upon them. They further alleged that summons and the required documents were also not served on them at the time respondent judge issued a TRO. According to complainants, despite these omissions, respondent judge issued a TRO on July 7, 2009, directing it to be effective for “seventy two (72) hours from date of issue” and doing so without requiring Obico to put up a bond.

On July 14, 2009, respondent judge issued an order extending the TRO, which complainants said had already expired, by allowing a further period “provided that the total period should not exceed twenty days.” Complainants asserted that even then, respondent judge again failed to require the bond they believed was judicially necessary under the applicable rules, and that the TRO extension and subsequent proceedings violated the mandatory hearing and notice requirements.

Thereafter, in a Resolution dated August 11, 2009, respondent judge ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, conditioned on Obico’s application for a bond in the amount of P100,000.00. Complainants argued that this violated Section 5, Rule 58, because they were not required to show cause at a specific time and place through the procedure mandated before the grant of a preliminary injunction. They then filed a motion for inhibition from further hearing the case on the ground that respondent judge lacked “cold neutrality” and allegedly denied them due process and equal protection. Respondent judge denied the motion in a Resolution dated October 28, 2009.

On November 11, 2009, respondent judge issued an order reducing the bond from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00. Complainants filed a motion to hold further proceedings in abeyance due to the pendency of their appeal before the Supreme Court of the resolution denying inhibition. Respondent judge denied this motion on December 15, 2009 and allowed Obico to present evidence ex parte on January 26, 2010, due to complainants’ failure to appear during pre-trial.

Respondent Judge’s Explanation and the OCA’s Role

In his Comment dated February 11, 2010, respondent judge clarified that as of the filing of the civil complaint, RTC Branches 27 and 43, Gingoog City, had no regular presiding judges. Branch 27 was temporarily presided over by Judge Rustico Paderanga of RTC, Camiguin, while Branch 43 was presided over by respondent judge, who was a regular judge of RTC, Branch 4, Butuan City, and was serving in an acting capacity as presiding judge and executive judge for the RTC in Gingoog City.

Respondent judge argued that he observed Rule 58 in Civil Case No. 2009-905. He stated that, as acting executive judge, he took cognizance of the case and acted immediately because of the alleged need for prompt action. He asserted that the issuance of the 72-hour TRO on July 7, 2009 was based on “sound discretion” arising from the civil complaint and annexes. He explained that the TRO extension on July 14, 2009 was justified because the initial TRO was only for seventy-two hours, and the extension for another period would keep the total within twenty days.

Respondent judge further defended the setting of the July 14, 2009 hearing by stating that, because he had to travel about 144 kilometers from Butuan City, he conducted hearings in that sala only on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. He maintained that setting summary hearings on other days would prejudice other cases already scheduled. As to the denial of inhibition, he claimed the motion lacked legal and factual basis.

Administrative Investigation and the OCA Recommendation

After due investigation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its Report dated September 13, 2010. The OCA recommended that the matter be redocketed as a regular administrative case. On the merits, the OCA found respondent judge grossly ignorant of the law and rules of procedure, specifically in relation to Rule 58. It recommended a fine of P25,000.00 with a stern warning that repetition or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.

The OCA identified the following acts as showing gross ignorance and deliberate disregard of the rules: (1) assuming jurisdiction over the civil complaint with a prayer for TRO on July 2, 2009, and issuing a 72-hour TRO on July 7, 2009 without the mandated raffle, without notice, and without service of summons to the adverse party; (2) setting the case for a summary hearing on July 14, 2009 to determine whether the TRO could be extended for another period, even though, according to the OCA, the hearing should be within seventy-two hours from the TRO’s issuance; (3) extending an already expired TRO into a full twenty-day period; and (4) issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without prior notice to complainants and without the required hearing.

Legal Basis: Rules on Preliminary Injunction and TRO (Rule 58)

In addressing the issues, the Court quoted and applied Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Section 4 required that an application for preliminary injunction or TRO be verified and show facts entitling the applicant to the relief, and that the applicant file a bond executed to the party enjoined, as fixed by the court, to answer for damages sustained by reason of the injunction or TRO if the applicant was ultimately not entitled thereto. It also required that when the application for a TRO or preliminary injunction was included in an initiatory pleading, in a multiple-sala court, the case be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined, and that in any event notice must be preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond. It further mandated that the application for TRO be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return and/or the records were received by the branch selected by raffle.

Section 5 provided that no preliminary injunction may be granted without hearing and prior notice, subject to an exception allowing ex parte issuance of a TRO in cases of extreme urgency to prevent great or irreparable injury. However, an ex parte TRO effective for only seventy-two (72) hours required the immediate compliance with the next preceding section on service of summons and documents. Thereafter, within the seventy-two hours, the judge before whom the case was pending had to conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO should be extended until the application for preliminary injunction could be heard. The rules imposed a cap: the total effectivity of the TRO could not exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours. Importantly, the rule stated that the effectivity of a TRO was not extendible without need of any judicial declaration to that effect, and no court had authority to extend or renew the TRO on the same ground for which it was issued, while also requiring that if the application for preliminary injunction was denied or not resolved within the said period, the TRO would be deemed automatically vacated.

The Court’s Findings on Rule 58 Violations

The Court held that, although the rules empowered an executive judge of a multiple-sala court to issue an ex parte 72-hour TRO in extreme emergencies to prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge was still bound to comply with Section 4(c), Rule 58, with respect to raffle and the service of summons and documents upon issuance of the TRO. The Court found that respondent judge failed to cause the raffle of Civil Case No. 2009-905 and failed to ensure notification and service of summons to complainants after issuing the 72-hour TRO. The Court treated respondent judge’s July 7, 2009 order as explicit that the case was set for a summary hearing on July 14, 2009, supposedly to determine whether the TRO could be extended, thus showing respondent judge had directly assumed jurisdiction while disregarding mandatory raffle and service requirements.

The Court further found that even if there had been a valid raffle, the supposed extreme urgency was belied by the scheduling of the summary hearing one week after issuance. The Court relied on the explicit mandate of Section 5 that the required summary hearing must be conducted within the seventy-two-hour period. It reasoned that respondent judge’s scheduling difficulty did not justify noncompliance, because July 7, 2009 was a Tuesday, and the summary hearing could have been set for the following Wednesday, July 8, 2009. The Court rejected respondent judge’s view that he could extend the TRO for another period as long as the total period did not exceed twenty days.

The Court emphasized that respondent judge extended a TRO that had already expired. It declared that an already expired TRO could no longer be extended. In the Court’s view, respondent judge should have known that a 72-hour TRO issued by an executive judge was valid only for seventy-two hours, and beyond that time the TRO automatically expired unless the required summary hearing was timely conducted to extend it. The Court also clarified that a 72-hour TRO issued by an executive judge was a separate and distinct TRO that could stand on its own, regardless of whether it was eventually extended. It therefore rejected the premise that the extension amounted merely to a continuation of a longer TRO.

The Court also found a further violation when respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction without the required hearing and without prior notice to complainants. It observed that the only prior hearing conducted before the August 11, 2009 resolution was the July 14, 2009 summary hearing for extension of the 72-h

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2255)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Spouses Democrito C. Lago and Olivia R. Lago filed an administrative complaint against Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., then of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Gingoog City.
The complaint charged the respondent judge with acts and omissions allegedly violative of the Standards of Conduct Prescribed for Judges, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The administrative case stemmed from the respondent judge’s rulings in Civil Case No. 2009-905, a case for Preliminary Injunction, Easement of Road Right of Way, and Attorney’s Fees, with prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the complaint and recommended that the respondent judge be found liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, with a fine of PHP 25,000.00 and a stern warning.
The Court adopted the OCA’s findings and imposed the recommended penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

Christina M. Obico filed the underlying civil action on July 2, 2009, seeking injunctive relief based on alleged threats by the complainants to close an access road to Obico’s property and milkfish (bangus) farm.
Obico asserted that closure of the access road would prevent harvesting milkfish, cause massive fish kills, and lead to heavy financial losses.
The complainants alleged that the civil complaint was never raffled and that no notice of raffle was served upon them, yet the case proceeded to Branch 43, where the respondent judge acted as presiding judge.
The complainants contended that the respondent judge failed to ensure the required raffle and service of summons and failed to follow the procedural safeguards mandated by Rule 58.
The respondent judge issued an order on July 7, 2009 directing issuance of a TRO effective seventy-two (72) hours from issuance, but the complainants argued that Obico was not required to post a bond and that the adverse parties had not yet been served with summons and relevant documents.
On July 14, 2009, the respondent judge issued another order extending the TRO, which had already expired, “for another period provided that the total period should not exceed twenty days,” which the complainants argued was procedurally improper and inconsistent with Rule 58.
In a resolution dated August 11, 2009, the respondent judge ordered issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on Obico’s application for a bond in the amount of PHP 100,000.00, which the complainants argued violated the requirement of an opportunity to be heard at a specified time and place.
The complainants filed a motion for inhibition due to perceived lack of impartiality, but it was denied by resolution dated October 28, 2009.
On November 11, 2009, the respondent judge ordered reduction of the bond to PHP 50,000.00.
When the complainants filed a motion to hold in abeyance due to the pendency of their appeal from the inhibition denial, the respondent judge denied it on the December 15, 2009 pre-trial setting.
The respondent judge allowed Obico to present evidence ex parte after complainants failed to appear during pre-trial.

Administrative Findings and OCA Recommendations

The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
The OCA found the respondent judge grossly and deliberately ignorant of the law and rules of procedure, specifically Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
The OCA pointed to four concrete procedural missteps:
First, the respondent judge allegedly assumed jurisdiction and issued a 72-hour TRO without the mandated raffle, without notifying and serving the adverse party with summons and required documents.
Second, the respondent judge allegedly set a “summary hearing” on July 14, 2009 to determine extension, even though the hearing should have occurred within seventy-two (72) hours from TRO issuance.
Third, the respondent judge allegedly granted an extension of an already expired TRO to a full twenty-day period.
Fourth, the respondent judge allegedly issued a writ of preliminary injunction without the required notice and hearing to the adverse parties.
The OCA concluded that the errors warranted administrative sanction and recommended a fine of PHP 25,000.00 plus a stern warning.

Applicable Law: Rule 58

The Court cited the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Under Section 4, a preliminary injunction or TRO may be granted only when the application is verified and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief, and when the applicant files a bond unless exempted.
Under Section 4(b), after approval of the bond, the writ of preliminary injunction shall issue.
Under Section 4(c), when an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a TRO is included in a complaint or initiatory pleading in a multiple-sala court, the case must be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined, and such notice must be preceded or contemporaneously accompanied by service of summons, with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s affidavit and bond.
Under Section 4(c), the prior or contemporaneous service requirement does not apply only in circumstances such as inability to serve despite diligent efforts, or when the adverse party is temporarily absent, or is a nonresident.
Under Section 4(d), the application for a TRO is acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff’s return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle.
Under Section 5, no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined.
Under Section 5, when ex parte issuance is justified by great or irreparable injury before a hearing on notice, the TRO may issue effective