G.R. No. RTJ-91-714. September 10, 1993.
BERNABE MORTEL, complainant, vs. JUDGE VICENTE LEIDO, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bernabe Mortel filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Vicente Leido, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Occidental Mindoro. The charges stemmed from two sets of incidents:
1. Civil Case No. C-130: The defendants (including complainant) filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied by respondent judge. They then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 24313) on March 4, 1991. The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 21, 1991, enjoining further proceedings. Despite this, respondent judge rendered a judgment on the pleadings on March 25, 1991. The CA later granted the petition on June 21, 1991, ordering the dismissal of Civil Case No. C-130. This decision became final and executory on April 13, 1992. Nevertheless, respondent issued a writ of execution in the case on December 14, 1992.
2. Criminal Case No. R-434: Respondent judge approved the property bond of accused Gary Atienza using a property (TCT No. T-7477) that complainant alleged had already been used as a bond for another accused, Isagani Gelindon, in a different criminal case without the prior bond being cancelled.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Vicente Leido, Jr. is administratively liable for:
1. Serious misconduct, ignorance of the law, and gross incompetence for rendering a judgment after the filing of a petition for certiorari and after a TRO was issued by the Court of Appeals.
2. Undue haste in deciding the case pending the petition for certiorari and without trial.
3. Serious misconduct, ignorance of the law, and gross incompetence for issuing a writ of execution after the CA decision had become final and executory.
4. Serious misconduct, ignorance of the law, or gross incompetence for approving a bail bond using property already bonded in another case.

RULING

The Court found respondent judge GUILTY of serious misconduct for issuing a writ of execution after the Court of Appeals decision had become final and executory, but NOT GUILTY of the other charges.
1. Regarding Charges 1 and 2: The evidence showed respondent received the CA Resolution with the TRO only on April 3, 1991, after he had rendered judgment on March 25, 1991. There is no mandatory rule requiring a judge to suspend proceedings merely upon the filing of a petition for certiorari absent a restraining order. The undue haste charge was not substantiated.
2. Regarding Charge 3: Respondent’s issuance of a writ of execution on December 14, 1992, despite the CA decision (which ordered dismissal of the case) having become final on April 13, 1992, constituted a willful disobedience of a lawful order of a superior court. This amounts to serious misconduct.
3. Regarding Charge 4: The evidence indicated the property (TCT No. T-7477) was never actually used as a bond for Gelindon because the attempt did not push through; thus, respondent’s approval of Atienza’s bond was not improper.
PENALTY: Respondent Judge Vicente Leido, Jr. is FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), CENSURED, and WARNED that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.