A.M. No. RTJ-00-1536; November 28, 2000
Atty. Redentor S. Viaje, complainant, vs. Judge Jose V. Hernandez, Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Mauban, Quezon, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Redentor S. Viaje charged respondent Judge Jose V. Hernandez with ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. The charges arose from Civil Case No. 0547-M, a damages suit with a prayer for a preliminary injunction filed by Atty. Viaje’s client against the Municipality of Mauban in October 1998. The complainant alleged that despite proper service of the complaint and the sheriff’s return, Judge Hernandez refused to act on the application for a preliminary injunction. Instead, after the defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss in December 1998, the judge issued an order setting a hearing for that motion, repeatedly resetting it to dates in January, February, and March 1999, while ignoring the pending injunctive prayer.
In his Comment, Judge Hernandez defended his actions, arguing he was preventing the improvident issuance of an injunction. He contended the plaintiff, a self-admitted farmworker, failed to show an unquestionable right to the property, as he was not a recognized tenant, and noted the lack of urgency since the municipality had used the lot since 1992. He attributed delays to a mandatory judicial dialogue and the absence of parties and counsel, denying any arbitrariness, bias, or ignorance of procedural rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose V. Hernandez is administratively liable for his handling of the application for a preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 0547-M.

RULING

Yes, but only for undue delay, not for ignorance of the law or grave misconduct. The Supreme Court found that while Judge Hernandez correctly understood the substantive requirements for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 58, he was administratively liable for unjustified procrastination. Regardless of the perceived merits or urgency of the application, it was incumbent upon the judge to act on the prayer promptly by granting, denying, or deferring it. His failure to schedule a hearing on the injunction for approximately four months constituted undue delay.
The Court rejected the judge’s excuses. His attendance at a judicial dialogue did not justify the initial prolonged inaction, and the subsequent cancellations did not absolve him from his duty to ensure the expeditious resolution of pending incidents. This delay, while not proving bad faith or partiality, gave the complainant reasonable ground to suspect bias, as it afforded the defendant ample time to file pleadings while the injunctive relief remained unaddressed. The Court emphasized that undue delay erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to provide speedy remedies. Applying precedent (Dumaya vs. Mendoza), the Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for the delay and directed Judge Hernandez to decide the case and all incidents with dispatch.