G.R. No. A.C. No. 182-J December 19, 1973
Camilo L. Sabio, complainant, vs. Hon. Sebastian M. Gonzales, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Attorney Camilo L. Sabio filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Alejandro E. Sebastian for alleged oppressive exercise of judicial power. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s issuance of an ex-parte preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of Cuison Lumber Company, which operated a logging concession. The injunction ordered the removal of a barricade on a road crossing a lot owned by “poor and illiterate farmers,” Mr. and Mrs. Romualdo Bhady, members of the Federation of Free Farmers. The logging company had bulldozed fruit trees on the property. When the Bhady spouses and Attorney Sabio failed to comply, they were cited and sentenced for contempt, creating an appearance of judicial partiality toward property rights over the farmers’ interests.
In his answer, respondent Judge defended his actions. He asserted that the ex-parte injunction was a discretionary act to prevent irreparable injury to the logging company’s operations and to forestall starvation among its workers due to cut-off supplies. He emphasized that the plaintiff company claimed a road right-of-way over what it alleged was an alienable portion of public land. The judge questioned why Sabio did not seek to lift the injunction or appeal the contempt order if he believed them illegal. Subsequently, complainant Sabio filed a manifestation stating he was no longer desirous of prosecuting the case and prayed for its dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge should be administratively disciplined for issuing an ex-parte preliminary mandatory injunction and contempt orders under the circumstances.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint as prayed for by complainant Sabio. The dismissal was granted in light of the complainant’s desistance and the explanation provided by the respondent Judge. The Court recognized that a lawyer’s zealous defense of underprivileged clients, which may lead to questioning a judge’s impartiality, is commendable. The factual allegations in the judge’s answer, which were not rebutted by the complainant, presented a different perspective that did not clearly justify disciplinary action.
However, the Court seized the opportunity to issue a cautionary reminder to the bench. It emphasized that judges must be ever vigilant to avoid even the appearance of favoring property rights automatically, especially when such rights conflict with the interests of the economically disadvantaged. The Court underscored the constitutional mandate of social justice, noting that the state must regulate private property to ensure the dignity and welfare of all people. Thus, while the specific acts did not warrant sanction in this instance, the judiciary must always be mindful of its role in balancing rights within the framework of social justice as enshrined in the Constitution.