G.R. No. RTJ-03-1815 October 25, 2004
Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) vs. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr.

FACTS

MCIAA filed an administrative complaint against Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr. for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order. The charges stemmed from Civil Case No. CEB-27132, a declaratory relief and mandamus case filed by MCIAA employees seeking various allowances. The respondent judge rendered a decision in favor of the employees. After MCIAA perfected its appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying fees, the employees moved for execution pending appeal.
Judge Hontanosas granted the motion for execution pending appeal via a Special Order dated July 8, 2002, and later issued a writ of execution. MCIAA filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal and that the order lacked the required good reasons. The judge denied the motion but suspended the writ’s implementation. However, on November 29, 2002, while the appeal was pending and after a pairing judge had affirmed the suspension order, Judge Hontanosas issued another order allowing the implementation of the writ of execution.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Hontanosas is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct for issuing orders for execution pending appeal after having lost jurisdiction over the case.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Hontanosas guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear under Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which states that upon perfection of an appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, except for specific residual powers like ordering execution pending appeal. Crucially, the rule mandates that such discretionary execution may only be ordered “prior to the transmittal of the original record” to the appellate court. Here, the judge’s November 29, 2002 order, which directed the implementation of the writ, was issued long after the appeal was perfected. At that point, he had unequivocally lost jurisdiction to issue any further orders on the matter. His act of disregarding this basic, well-settled rule constituted gross ignorance of the law. A judge is presumed to know the law, and failure to apply fundamental rules on jurisdiction is inexcusable. The Court emphasized that the judge’s subsequent order not only violated procedure but also contravened an existing order from a pairing judge, demonstrating arbitrariness. For this infraction, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a stern warning.