A.M. No. (11-MJ) 498-MJ July 31, 1974
LUISA GAMELONG, LUIS GAMELONG & PETRONILO GAMELONG, complainants, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SILVESTRE TAYSON, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Luisa, Luis, and Petronilo Gamelong, alleging to be agricultural tenants, filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Silvestre Tayson of San Enrique, Negros Occidental. They charged him with gross ignorance of the law and using his office to illegally eject them from their landholding. They alleged that in May 1968, before a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 214) was filed against them by Ciriaco Talam, the respondent judge summoned them to a conference with Talam. They claimed the judge angrily demanded they surrender part of their landholdings to Talam or quit entirely. Subsequently, when the forcible entry case was filed in his court, Judge Tayson issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction that led to their ejectment, allegedly in violation of agrarian laws.
Respondent judge denied the allegations. He explained the conference was an attempt to prevent litigation, and he merely explained the contractual rights involved. He asserted that the forcible entry complaint was sufficient in form and substance, and the issuance of the preliminary writ was a provisional exercise of judicial discretion. He maintained that a claim of tenancy does not automatically divest a municipal court of jurisdiction over a forcible entry case, citing jurisprudence. The complainants later filed an affidavit of desistance, stating they had been restored to possession and sought to withdraw the complaint. The investigating judge, however, proceeded to require the respondent to present evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Silvestre Tayson is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the charge of using his office as an instrument for illegal ejectment to be unfounded. The evidence showed the judge’s actions during the conference were an attempt to give impartial advice to prevent litigation, which is not improper. However, the Court found him administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law concerning the issuance of the preliminary mandatory injunction in the forcible entry case.
The legal logic is twofold. First, on jurisdiction, while a municipal judge may initially take cognizance of a forcible entry case even if a tenancy issue is raised, the subsequent final ruling by the Court of Appeals—which ordered the dismissal of the forcible entry case and the continuation of the agrarian case—established that the dispute properly pertained to the Court of Agrarian Relations. Respondent’s failure to properly recognize the primacy of agrarian jurisdiction once the tenancy issue was squarely raised demonstrated a lack of requisite care. Second, and more critically, on procedure, the Court ruled his grant of the ex-parte preliminary mandatory injunction was “rather precipitate.” He should have conducted a hearing to determine the existence of grave or irreparable injury before issuing such a coercive writ. This procedural lapse constituted gross ignorance of fundamental rules. The Court concluded the error was committed in good faith but emphasized the need for greater diligence. Respondent Judge Silvestre Tayson was REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED to be more careful and diligent in the exercise of his jurisdiction.