G.R. No. RTJ-11-2271; September 24, 2012
Lucia O. Magtibay, Complainant, vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, AI Haj., Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lucia O. Magtibay, an heir in Special Proceedings No. 2004-074, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Cader P. Indar for Gross Ignorance of the Law and deplorable conduct. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of an Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) filed by complainant to restrain a third party, Mercedita Taguba-Dumlao, from representing the estate in collecting road right-of-way compensation from the DPWH. Complainant alleged Dumlao committed fraud. In an Order dated March 26, 2009, respondent judge denied the TRO application for “utter lack of merit,” berated complainant for filing “libelous pleadings,” and threatened her with a fine, all without conducting the required hearing on the injunction.
Complainant further alleged that respondent judge exhibited bias and improper conduct. After filing a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition, which the judge left unresolved, complainant’s representatives experienced rude treatment. In a sworn statement, representative Jommel Valles claimed that on May 18, 2009, when they requested case documents, respondent judge angrily denied them, stating, “Denied na ung motion nyo,” and told them to leave, saying, “Ireklamo ninyo na ako ng administratibo sa Supreme Court.” Respondent judge, in his Comment, defended his denial of the TRO, arguing it presented no genuine issue, and claimed the motion for reconsideration was filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the TRO application and his conduct towards the complainant’s representatives.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable, but not for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Court held that while the judge’s denial of the TRO without a hearing was an error of judgment, it did not rise to the level of gross ignorance, which requires a showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. However, the Court found him guilty of two offenses: Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.
Regarding undue delay, the judge failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition for an unreasonable period, violating the constitutional mandate for speedy disposition of cases. His claim that it was filed out of time did not excuse his duty to issue a formal order. Concerning conduct unbecoming, the judge’s discourteous and arrogant behavior towards the complainant’s representatives, as detailed in the sworn statement, was a clear violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to be patient, dignified, and courteous. The Court emphasized that a judge’s position demands the highest standard of propriety to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Although the judge had already been dismissed from service in a separate case, the administrative proceeding was not moot as accessory penalties could still be imposed. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).