A.M. No. RTJ-06-1996 ; July 25, 2006
Ramon M. Calo, complainant, vs. Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Butuan City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ramon M. Calo, representing Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services, Inc. (NIASSI), filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. for serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 1242. The judge initially granted NIASSI’s prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Upon motion for reconsideration by the opposing party, Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), the judge subsequently issued a resolution dissolving the writ effective immediately without requiring PPA to post a counter bond. Complainant alleged the dissolution was precipitous and on doubtful grounds, suggesting the judge succumbed to undue influence from politicians interested in the stevedoring business.
In his Comment, respondent judge denied any partiality. He explained the hearing schedules for PPA’s motion were adjusted due to counsels’ availability. He justified dissolving the writ because NIASSI’s Holdover Authority/Permit was set to expire, thereby removing the basis for the injunction, and contended that under procedural rules, a counter bond was not required under the circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. is administratively liable for the alleged irregularities in handling the motion for reconsideration and in dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction without requiring a counter bond.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit but sternly warned the respondent judge to be more circumspect in issuing orders. The legal logic is anchored on the principle that acts pertaining to a judge’s judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary action unless committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith, which complainant failed to substantiate with clear and convincing evidence. The grant or denial of an injunction is a discretionary judicial act. The proper remedy for any perceived error is a judicial appeal, not an administrative complaint. Here, NIASSI had already availed of the judicial remedy by filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the same issues, making the administrative complaint improper.
Regarding the allegation of partiality, the Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of judicial functions. Bare allegations of bias, without substantial evidence, cannot overcome this presumption. However, the Court noted that the judge’s April 1, 2005 order was misleading as it stated a hearing was held when it was merely reset, which could engender perceptions of partiality. Hence, the warning was issued to ensure future orders accurately reflect proceedings. The absence of proven bad faith or corruption in the judge’s discretionary act of dissolving the writ without a bond, based on the impending expiration of NIASSI’s permit, precludes administrative liability.