G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-01-1350. July 20, 2001
LORENZO PASCUAL, RODOLFO FELIX, EDDIE BARLAN, CELSO DIZON MANEJA, and NARDITO METURADA, complainants, vs. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, ISABELA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants were defendants in three forcible entry cases (Civil Case Nos. 2293, 2294, 2295) before respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao. On December 4, 1995, the same day the cases were filed, respondent issued a Joint Order directing the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against complainants. Complainants moved for reconsideration, arguing the TRO violated Supreme Court Circular No. 20-95. Respondent denied the motion on March 26, 1996, stating it was moot as the TRO’s effectivity had expired. On March 25, 1996, the plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Deposit Harvest,” which respondent granted via a Joint Order on the same day, ordering complainants to deposit the net harvest from the disputed land with the court and for the sheriff to supervise the activity. Complainants moved for reconsideration, arguing the motion violated Rule 15, §§4 and 5 of the Rules of Court (requiring notice and hearing) and that no law authorizes such an order in forcible entry cases. They also sought respondent’s inhibition for partiality. An administrative complaint was filed on April 17, 1996, accusing respondent of: (1) gross ignorance of the law for issuing the TRO in violation of Circular No. 20-95; (2) gross negligence for failing to act promptly on the motion for reconsideration of the TRO; (3) gross ignorance for granting the harvest deposit motion without notice and hearing; and (4) dishonesty and corruption for failing to order an accounting of the harvested crops. Respondent defended his TRO issuance as necessary to avert harm and claimed the cases had been finally disposed of.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and negligence in connection with his orders in the forcible entry cases.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), holding respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and negligence.
1. Regarding the TRO: Respondent violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which required that a TRO be issued only after a summary hearing conducted within 24 hours after raffle and upon prior notice to the adverse party. Respondent issued the TRO on the very day the complaints were filed, without any hearing, demonstrating gross ignorance of this circular.
2. Regarding the Motion to Deposit Harvest: Respondent granted the motion on the same day it was filed, without a hearing and despite the motion being defective for lack of a notice of hearing addressed to the defendants, in violation of Rule 15, §§4 and 5 of the Rules of Court. This constituted gross ignorance of procedural rules. Furthermore, the Court found that in a forcible entry case, which primarily deals with possession, an order to deposit harvests is a prejudgment of the case and an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction over the fruits of the property, which is not authorized by the Rules of Court.
3. Regarding the Failure to Order an Accounting: Respondent was negligent for failing to order the sheriff to render an accounting of the harvest taken pursuant to his order, which was his duty to ensure the proper safeguarding of the property in custodia legis.
The Court imposed a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on respondent Judge Dumlao, with a warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.