G.R. No. RTJ-03-1746. September 26, 2003.
Roger F. Borja, Complainant, vs. Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Roger F. Borja, General Manager of the San Pablo City Water District, filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo of the RTC, Branch 32, San Pablo City. The complaint alleged gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in Civil Case No. SP-5775 (01) on January 3, 2001, without complying with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95. Complainant specifically cited violations including the issuance by a single judge in a multi-sala court instead of the Executive Judge, the lack of a prior or contemporaneous service of summons and supporting documents, the absence of a summary hearing, and the issuance ex-parte without a bond or a showing of extreme urgency. Respondent Judge later inhibited herself from the case, which was re-raffled to Branch 30 presided by Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali, who subsequently dissolved the TRO for being issued in violation of the rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo is administratively liable for her issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order.

RULING

Yes, but not for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court found her liable for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. The legal logic is that while a judge may not be administratively liable for every erroneous order, liability attaches when the error is committed with a conscious and deliberate intent to disregard an elementary, plain, and simple rule. The Court noted that respondent had been previously apprised of the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 in an earlier, dismissed administrative case. Therefore, her failure to comply with the clear procedural mandates for issuing a TRO—which are designed to prevent its improvident issuance—constituted a conscious disregard of her duties. This act undermined public confidence in the courts and warranted administrative sanction. The Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning. The Court also absolved Judge Balisi-Umali, explaining that she did not nullify a co-equal court’s process but merely ruled on a motion in a case duly re-raffled to her branch after respondent’s inhibition.