A.M. No. RTJ-91-672 September 28, 1993
SPOUSES JOSE SY BANG AND ILUMINADA TAN, complainants, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO MENDEZ, SR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant-spouses Jose Sy Bang and Iluminada Tan filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Antonio Mendez, Sr. for gross impropriety, partiality, irregularities, and issuing unjust orders in Civil Case No. 2137-G. The case involved properties in Calauag, Quezon, originally owned by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and leased to Suarez Agro-Industrial Development Corporation. After the corporation defaulted on rentals, DBP sold the properties to the complainants. The corporation refused to vacate, leading to an ejectment suit filed by the complainants in the Municipal Trial Court of Calauag. The corporation filed an action for specific performance and annulment of sale in the Makati RTC, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for improper venue. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the corporation filed the same action in the RTC of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 62, presided by respondent judge, who also presided Branch 61 as pairing judge. Respondent judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and later a writ of preliminary injunction in favor of the corporation. Complainants charged respondent judge with: (1) lack of jurisdiction to hear cases under Calauag’s territorial jurisdiction without Supreme Court authority; (2) issuing orders (April 26, April 30, and May 14, 1991) to place properties under the corporation’s control without due process; (3) approving a questionable bond from a bankrupt insurance company; (4) issuing an order (May 24, 1991) to break open premises without a hearing; and (5) prematurely submitting the case for decision on May 8, 1991, before complainants filed an answer.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio Mendez, Sr. committed gross impropriety, blatant partiality, serious irregularities, and knowingly issued unjust orders warranting administrative sanctions.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of Investigating Justice Oscar M. Herrera.
1. On jurisdiction and venue: Respondent judge committed no infraction in acting on the complaint filed in Gumaca, despite the property being in Calauag. Venue is waivable, and complainants did not timely object but filed an answer with counterclaim, thus waiving improper venue.
2. On issuance of orders without hearing: The ex parte TRO was allowed under the Rules. The preliminary mandatory injunction was granted only after a hearing where both parties presented evidence.
3. On the bond: The bond from Plaridel Surety and Insurance Co. was approved on May 17, 1991, and respondent judge was informed of the surety’s suspension only on February 10, 1992. Thus, no error was committed at the time of approval.
4. On the order to break open premises: This order was issued to implement the writ of injunction and was not required to be preceded by a hearing.
5. On premature submission for decision: The submission for decision referred only to the issue of the preliminary mandatory injunction, not the main case, as the TRO would expire in 20 days.
However, respondent judge was censured for approving the bond without requiring proof of premium payment and for not acting promptly on the motion to dismiss based on litis pendentia after being informed of the pending Makati case. The Court admonished him to exercise greater care and circumspection in his duties.
DISPOSITIVE: Respondent Judge Antonio Mendez, Sr. is CENSURED and admonished to be more circumspect, with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.