A.M. No. RTJ-97-1368. February 27, 1997.
ERNESTO RIEGO, ET AL., complainants, vs. JUDGE EMILIO L. LEACHON, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, residents facing demolition, filed an injunction case (Civil Case No. Q-95-25779) before respondent Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr., RTC, Quezon City, Branch 224. On December 8, 1995, respondent judge denied the preliminary injunction, dismissed the complaint, and ordered demolition deferred until January 1, 1996. Complainants perfected their appeal to the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1995, and the CA directed the transmittal of records.
Despite the perfected appeal, respondent judge entertained a motion for execution pending appeal filed by the defendants on December 27, 1995, set for hearing on December 29. The motion did not comply with the three-day notice rule. Complainants opposed, arguing the trial court had lost jurisdiction. On December 29, respondent judge issued an order granting the motion for execution, which he had prepared even before the scheduled hearing. A writ was subsequently implemented on January 24, 1996. The Court of Appeals later found grave abuse of discretion in issuing the December 29 order and permanently enjoined its implementation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his actions in handling Civil Case No. Q-95-25779.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable, but only for his actions after the perfection of the appeal. The Supreme Court found that the initial order dismissing the complaint and denying the injunction was a judicial error not warranting administrative sanction. A judge cannot be disciplined for errors of judgment absent proof of a conscious and deliberate intent to cause injustice. Respondent judge acted in good faith, relying on final rulings in two previous cases involving the same parties and property.
However, respondent judge committed a serious procedural error warranting reprimand when he issued the order for execution pending appeal after complainants had perfected their appeal and the CA had ordered the transmittal of records. At that point, he had lost jurisdiction over the case. His precipitate action in granting the motion, which lacked proper notice, and in failing to require a bond for the execution, resulted in legal complications and undue hardship for the complainants. This disregard of basic jurisdictional rules constitutes impropriety. The charge regarding entertaining litigants under suspicious circumstances was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent Judge Emilio L. Leachon, Jr. was REPRIMANDED.