G.R. No. A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC, February 16, 2021
RE: LETTER DATED MARCH 9, 2020 OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, MD, MSC, RE: SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. R-MNL-19-12843-SP (JBROS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION/FUJIAN ZHONGMA CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO., LTD. CONSORTIUM AND/OR JBROS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BOTH REPRESENTED BY ENGR. JESUSITO B. LEGASPI, JR. V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HON. FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT POLICY BOARD).

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a letter dated March 9, 2020, by Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Francisco T. Duque III, addressed to Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, concerning the alleged improper issuance of a preliminary injunction by Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 27, in Spec. Pro. Case No. R-MNL-19-12843-SP. The controversy involved the DOH’s Blacklisting Order dated May 20, 2019, against JBROS Construction Corporation (JBROS) due to alleged irregularities in Phase II of the “Barangay Health Stations Project.” JBROS contested the blacklisting by filing two separate petitions in different RTC branches.
First, JBROS filed a Petition for Certiorari with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before RTC Manila, Branch 12 (Civil Case No. 19-09240-SC), presided by Judge Renata Z. Enciso. In an Order dated September 26, 2019, Judge Enciso denied the application for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the acts sought to be enjoined (the blacklisting) had already been performed prior to the filing of the petition. JBROS subsequently moved to dismiss the case without prejudice, which Judge Enciso granted on October 14, 2019.
JBROS then refiled the case, designating it as a “Petition for Interim Measure of Protection in Aid of Arbitration under the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act ( R.A. No. 9285 )” with an urgent motion for an ex parte 20-day TRO. This was raffled to RTC Manila, Branch 27, presided by Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso. On December 19, 2019, Pairing Judge Lily Joy Labayo-Patria issued the 20-day TRO. After the TRO expired, Judge Soriaso, in an Order dated January 20, 2020, issued a writ of preliminary injunction directing the DOH to desist from implementing the contract termination, recall the blacklisting order, and submit a Delisting Order to the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB).
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and found that Judge Soriaso violated the doctrine of judicial stability by issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that contradicted the earlier dismissal order of Judge Enciso. The OCA also noted that the issuance was erroneous because the acts sought to be restrained (the blacklisting) were already executed, and that JBROS had committed forum shopping by refiling a similar petition after an unfavorable ruling. The OCA recommended that Judge Soriaso be held administratively liable.
In her defense, Judge Soriaso argued that the two petitions were different and did not preclude each other, that she did not violate judicial stability as the earlier case was already dismissed, and that she acted in good faith without knowledge of the prior case. The OCA maintained its findings, recommending that Judge Soriaso be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violation of Supreme Court rules.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and for violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction under the circumstances.

RULING

Yes, Judge Teresa Patrimonio-Soriaso is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s findings but modified the penalty.
The Court held that Judge Soriaso violated the doctrine of judicial stability, which prohibits courts of equal rank from interfering with each other’s judgments or orders. By issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that effectively nullified the earlier ruling of Judge Enciso (who had denied the same injunction), Judge Soriaso disregarded this doctrine. The Court emphasized that judges must exercise utmost caution, prudence, and judiciousness in issuing injunctions, as mandated by Administrative Circular No. 7-99.
Furthermore, Judge Soriaso exhibited gross ignorance of the law by failing to recognize that the acts sought to be enjoined (the blacklisting) were already accomplished, making the injunction improper. An injunction does not lie against fait accompli (accomplished acts). She also ignored JBROS’s forum shopping, as the refiled petition sought the same relief despite the earlier dismissal. Her claim of good faith and lack of knowledge was untenable, as the DOH had informed her of the prior case.
The Court found Judge Soriaso guilty of:
1. Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure Imposing a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).
2. Violation of Administrative Circular No. 7-99 Imposing an additional fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
She was warned that repetition of similar acts would merit more severe sanctions. The Court’s decision was concurred in by all justices.