A.M. No. MTJ-02-1453; April 29, 2003
Editha Palma Gil, complainant, vs. Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Lupon, Davao Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Editha Palma Gil, the defendant in Civil Case No. 1110 for Forcible Entry and Damages, charged respondent Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. with Undue Delay in the Disposition of Case and Ignorance of the Law. She alleged that respondent judge failed to render judgment in the summary ejectment case within the mandatory 30-day period prescribed by Rule 70, Section 11 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, complainant assailed the judge for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) on October 9, 2001, despite the motion lacking the required verification and bond, in violation of Rule 58, Section 4.
In his defense, respondent judge denied any deliberate delay, attributing it to his heavy caseload from also presiding over two other municipal courts due to inhibitions of the regular judges. He claimed the legal issues in the case were complicated. Regarding the TRO, he asserted he merely issued a “status quo order” to prevent violence, as armed men from both parties were present, and he needed police assistance for implementation due to the absence of a regular sheriff.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of both gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law. On the charge of delay, the Court emphasized that the 30-day period for deciding ejectment cases under the Rule on Summary Procedure is mandatory. The reasons offered by the judge—heavy workload and case complexity—do not excuse the delay. If he needed more time, his recourse was to request a formal extension from the Court. His failure to decide promptly violated the parties’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case and constituted gross inefficiency.
Regarding the TRO, the Court ruled that the judge committed gross ignorance of the law. The procedural requirements for issuing a TRO, such as a verified application and a bond, are basic and fundamental. His claim of issuing a mere “status quo order” was a distinction without a legal difference, as it functioned as a restraining order. While the Court acknowledged that seeking police assistance for implementation in a volatile situation was prudent, this did not absolve him from the procedural lapse in issuing the order. Ignorance of such elementary rules is inexcusable. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and issued a stern warning.