G.R. No. RTJ-11-2298. February 22, 2012. ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA and ATTY. CLARITO SERVILLAS, Complainants, vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Surigao City, Respondent.
FACTS

This administrative complaint arose from three cases handled by respondent Judge Victor A. Canoy. In Civil Case No. 7077, a petition for injunction, Judge Canoy issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction without a bond, which resulted in the transfer of possession of a school and church from the respondent spouses to the petitioner. The complainants, acting as counsel for the respondent spouses, alleged this constituted gross ignorance of law, as injunctive relief is improper for transferring possession where title is disputed. They further charged undue delay, as the judge failed to resolve a Motion for Reconsideration within the reglementary period.
In Spec. Proc. No. 7101, a habeas corpus case, Judge Canoy ordered the release of the petitioner on a holiday. Complainants alleged gross ignorance of procedure and undue interference with the Bureau of Immigration for also ordering the release of the petitioner’s expired passport. They further accused him of violating judicial conduct by acting in a friendly manner towards the petitioner and propounding questions like a counsel. In Civil Case No. 7065, complainants charged gross inefficiency for the judge’s undue delay of over a year in resolving a simple Motion to Dismiss.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Victor A. Canoy is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Undue Delay, and other alleged infractions.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Canoy guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Undue Delay. The legal logic is grounded on the principle that judges must exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with laws and procedures. For the TRO and preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 7077, the Court ruled that the judge displayed gross ignorance. The elementary rule is that a writ of injunction is not a remedy to take property out of the possession of one party and deliver it to another whose title is unestablished. By using the injunction to effect a transfer of possession, the judge committed a basic, fundamental, and patent error that amounted to gross ignorance, not a mere error of judgment. This is inexcusable.
Regarding the undue delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration in the same case and the Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 7065, the Court found the respondent liable. Judges are mandated to resolve motions promptly. His excuses, such as the motion not being submitted for resolution, were untenable. The delay constituted a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. However, the charges related to the habeas corpus case and judicial demeanor were dismissed for lack of merit, as the actions taken were within judicial discretion and the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated. Considering his previous administrative sanction, the Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) and issued a stern warning.