G.R. No. RTJ-14-2369 and RTJ-14-2372. July 26, 2016.
Department of Justice, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima, Petitioner, vs. Judge Rolando G. Mislang, Presiding Judge, Branch 167, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Respondent. / Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), represented by Atty. Jose Roberto F. Po, Petitioner, vs. Judge Rolando G. Mislang, Presiding Judge, Branch 167, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Respondent.

FACTS

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) recommended a preliminary investigation based on a complaint by the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) against Delfin S. Lee and officers of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation for syndicated estafa (economic sabotage) involving fraudulent housing loan take-outs. This was docketed as the first DOJ case. Subsequently, Lee filed a civil case for specific performance and damages against HDMF in Makati RTC. Later, the NBI recommended Lee be charged, leading to a second DOJ case for preliminary investigation. Lee filed a petition to suspend the second DOJ case pending the civil case, citing a prejudicial question, but the DOJ panel denied it, finding no common issues or parties. Lee then filed a Petition for Injunction (with application for a TRO) against the DOJ before Judge Rolando G. Mislang, seeking to suspend the preliminary investigation in the second DOJ case and prevent the filing of an information in the first DOJ case. The parties agreed, with Judge Mislang’s permission, to submit the petition for resolution upon submission of memoranda. However, Lee filed an unverified Urgent Motion for ex-parte resolution of his TRO application. Without waiting for the DOJ’s memorandum and without conducting a hearing, Judge Mislang issued Orders granting Lee’s petition. The HDMF and the DOJ filed separate administrative complaints against Judge Mislang for gross ignorance of the law, disregard of rules on injunctive relief and prejudicial question, partiality, and gross misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Rolando G. Mislang is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct in issuing the assailed Orders granting injunctive relief.

RULING

Yes, Judge Mislang is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that Judge Mislang be dismissed from service. His actions violated basic legal principles: (1) He granted a TRO without notice and hearing, violating the DOJ’s constitutional right to due process. (2) He manifestly lacked knowledge on prejudicial question and jurisdiction under Rules of Criminal Procedure. The civil and criminal cases lacked commonality of issues and parties, and the civil case was not instituted prior to the first DOJ case, negating a prejudicial question. Furthermore, injunction generally does not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution. The Court of Appeals had already annulled his Order for grave abuse of discretion. Given his wanton disregard of established rules and procedures, and considering his previous administrative sanctions, his actions constituted gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct warranting dismissal. He was ordered dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.