A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525. June 25, 2018. SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, complainant, vs. HON. OSCAR P. NOEL, JR., EXECUTIVE JUDGE/PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 35, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Samuel Rodriguez filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Oscar Noel, Jr. for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Discretion. The first incident involved a Temporary Release Order for bail issued on a Sunday, June 28, 2015, in favor of accused individuals in a frustrated murder case where Rodriguez was the victim. Rodriguez argued that while executive judges can act on bail petitions on holidays, the formal petition was only filed the following Monday, June 29. The second incident concerned a 72-hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued in a civil case on Friday, July 10, 2015. Rodriguez alleged the TRO was improperly extended for 20 days on July 14, 2015, beyond the 72-hour lifespan, and that he was not furnished a copy of the notice for the extension hearing.
Respondent Judge defended his actions. Regarding the bail order, he asserted the accused were arrested on June 26, and their lawyer presented a petition at his residence on the evening of June 28. After reviewing it and obtaining the prosecutor’s comment and bail recommendation that same night, he issued the release order, with official receipts processed the next working day. For the TRO, he explained it was issued as Executive Judge on a Friday. A special raffle was set for the following Monday, July 13, but he was assigned to an out-of-town hearing via the Enhanced Justice on Wheels program. Consequently, the hearing for the TRO’s extension was held on July 14 to maintain the status quo and prevent violence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing the Temporary Release Order on a Sunday and for extending the 72-hour TRO beyond its allowable period.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge NOT GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and dismissed the complaint. On the bail issue, the Court ruled the judge acted within his authority. The constitutional right to bail is available to all not charged with a capital offense. Under the Rules, any person in custody may apply for bail with any court. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99 explicitly allows judges to act on bailable offenses on Sundays and holidays. The judge’s act of receiving the petition at his residence and issuing the order after evaluation was a valid exercise of this duty, not ignorance of procedure. The subsequent official processing on Monday did not invalidate the lawful Sunday order.
Concerning the TRO, the Court clarified that the 72-hour period is prescribed for the lifespan of the TRO itself, not a strict deadline for the judge’s hearing on its extension. The Rules require the judge to determine within 72 hours whether the TRO should be extended. Here, the TRO expired on Monday, July 13. While the hearing was held on July 14, the delay was justified by the judge’s official duties in the EJOW program, a circumstance beyond his control intended to further the administration of justice. There was no showing of bad faith, fraud, or deliberate intent to violate the rules. Gross ignorance of the law implies a conscious disregard of simple and elementary rules; mere error in judgment, absent proof of malicious intent, is not sufficient for administrative liability. The Court adopted the OCA’s finding that the issuance of the bail order was proper but modified it by absolving the judge of any liability regarding the T