A.M. No. RTJ-00-1533. November 20, 2000. Attys. Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa and Ricardo Ma. P.G. Ongkiko, complainants, vs. Judge Celso D. Laviña, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71, respondent.
FACTS

The complainants, counsel for Tokyu Construction Co., Ltd., a member of the MTOB Consortium contracted to build the NAIA Terminal 2, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Celso D. Laviña for grave misconduct. The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 66060, a suit for breach of contract and injunction filed by another consortium member, BF Corporation, against Tokyu. On January 10, 1997, the Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO. The case was raffled to respondent judge’s branch on January 13. Tokyu immediately filed an urgent opposition, citing Presidential Decree No. 1818 and Supreme Court Circulars Nos. 13-93 and 68-94, which prohibit courts from issuing injunctions that delay government infrastructure projects.
Despite this explicit notice, respondent judge issued an order on January 21, 1997, extending the TRO without addressing the cited legal prohibitions. This compelled Tokyu to seek relief from the Court of Appeals, which issued a TRO against the judge’s order. The Court of Appeals later allowed a limited hearing but cautioned against issuing any writ that would impede the project. Nevertheless, on July 18, 1997, respondent judge issued a prohibitory writ of preliminary injunction, which the complainants argued effectively restrained Tokyu from dealing with MIAA on consortium matters, thereby obstructing the government project.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for issuing orders and a writ of preliminary injunction in disregard of PD 1818 and pertinent Supreme Court circulars.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that while judges are presumed to act regularly and in good faith, this presumption is overturned by a blatant disregard of clear legal mandates. PD 1818 explicitly prohibits courts from issuing restraining orders or injunctions that delay, impede, or obstruct national government infrastructure projects. This prohibition is reiterated and emphasized in Supreme Court Circulars Nos. 13-93 and 68-94, which enjoin strict compliance.
The legal logic is straightforward: the law and circulars establish a clear public policy to prevent judicial interference with critical government infrastructure. By extending the TRO and later issuing the writ without even acknowledging, much less justifying an exception to, these binding prohibitions, respondent judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law or a contumacious indifference to it. His claim that the law was inapplicable was a mere contrivance, as the writ he issued directly affected the consortium’s dealings with the government agency, MIAA, thereby threatening the project’s progress. Judges are duty-bound to be conversant with fundamental statutes and circulars. His failure to do so, resulting in an order that flouted a clear statutory ban, constitutes grave misconduct prejudicial to the proper and efficient administration of justice. The Court fined him ₱5,000.00 with a warning.