G.R. No. RTJ-11-2259, RTJ-11-2264, RTJ-11-2273. October 22, 2013.
MA. REGINA S. PERALTA, ROMUALDO G. MENDOZA, and ATTY. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA, Complainants, vs. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves three consolidated administrative complaints against Judge George E. Omelio of the RTC of Davao City, Branch 14.
1. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259 (Peralta Complaint): Complainant Ma. Regina S. Peralta was a plaintiff in a separate civil case (Civil Case No. 32,302-08) before another branch. Respondent judge, in a different case (Civil Case No. 33,291-10) filed by Jonathon Bentley Stevens, issued a 20-day TRO ex parte, enjoining Land Bank from blocking a road. Peralta alleged this TRO contravened orders from the other branch and was issued without the hearing required by the Rules of Court. She claimed the judge would have discovered, had he conducted a hearing, that: (a) a similar relief was pending in the Court of Appeals; (b) the corporate plaintiff named in the TRO did not exist; (c) Land Bank had a long-standing writ of possession over the property; and (d) access was not being prevented. The TRO allegedly enabled Stevens to remove properties, causing Peralta emotional distress and financial loss for security.
2. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2264 (Mendoza Complaint): Complainant Romualdo G. Mendoza was a defendant in an annulment of judgment case. The previous judge (Judge Europa) had denied the plaintiff association’s application for a preliminary injunction. After Judge Europa inhibited herself, the case was re-raffled to respondent judge. Seven months later, the association filed another motion for reconsideration. Respondent judge granted it, setting aside Judge Europa’s order and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. Mendoza charged respondent with gross ignorance for: (a) entertaining a prohibited second motion for reconsideration filed out of time; (b) granting an injunction without an affidavit of merit; (c) demonstrating bias by familiarly calling the association’s counsel “Congressman” and arguing on his behalf; and (d) failing to state reasons for reversing the prior order.
3. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2273 (Cruzabra Complaint): Complainant Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra, the Acting Registrar of Deeds, testified in a petition for judicial reconstitution of titles (Sp. Proc. No. 7527-2004). The petitioner, Helen Denila, claimed authority via a special power of attorney from an alleged estate administrator. The OSG opposed, arguing the documents were insufficient under R.A. No. 26 . Cruzabra testified that the original titles were mutilated/destroyed but also that they bore markings indicating cancellation. Respondent judge granted the petition, ordering the reconstitution of several OCTs and the issuance of new titles in Denila’s name. Cruzabra elevated a consulta to the LRA, and the OSG filed a petition for relief from judgment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge George E. Omelio is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, oppression, bias, and partiality based on the consolidated complaints.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Misconduct, constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
1. Regarding A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259 (Peralta): The Court found respondent grossly ignorant for issuing the TRO ex parte without a hearing. The Rules of Court mandate a summary hearing before issuing a TRO, unless a hearing is impossible due to time constraints. Respondent failed to justify this omission. His claim of an “extremely urgent” situation was untenable, as the complaint alleged the road had been blocked for two years. His disregard of basic procedural rules amounted to gross ignorance.
2. Regarding A.M. No. RTJ-11-2264 (Mendoza): The Court found respondent grossly ignorant for granting the writ of preliminary injunction. He entertained a second motion for reconsideration, which is prohibited. He also reversed a final order (Judge Europa’s denial of the injunction) that had long become final and executory. A judge has no authority to modify or set aside the final orders of a colleague from a co-equal court. His actions constituted gross ignorance of fundamental procedural principles.
3. Regarding A.M. No. RTJ-11-2273 (Cruzabra): The Court found respondent grossly ignorant in granting the petition for reconstitution. Judicial reconstitution under R.A. No. 26 strictly requires the petition to be based on specified sources. The documents presented by Denila (deeds of sale, tax declarations) were not among these enumerated sources. Furthermore, reconstitution is prohibited if the certificate of title was already cancelled or superseded. Cruzabra’s testimony and the OSG’s evidence indicated the OCTs were cancelled. Respondent’s decision blatantly disregarded these clear legal parameters.
The Court emphasized that judges are expected to have more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and procedures. Respondent’s repeated failure to apply basic, elementary, and well-known rules constituted gross ignorance, which is inexcusable. His actions also demonstrated gross misconduct, which is a grave transgression of established rules. Considering the gravity of the offenses and that this was not his first infraction, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. He was also ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred.