G.R. No. RTJ-04-1826. February 6, 2008.
Greenstar Bocay Mangandingan, complainant, vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Marawi City; Atty. Cairoding P. Maruhom, Clerk of Court VI and Mr. Masbod M. Sybil, Cash Clerk II, both of the RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Marawi City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Greenstar Bocay Mangandingan, a proclaimed Punong Barangay, was among the defendants in a civil case for damages filed by a losing candidate. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 1912-03. Respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong, presiding judge of RTC Branch 8, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on March 5, 2003, without conducting a hearing and before the case was allegedly raffled to his branch. He extended this TRO for another twenty days on March 11, 2003, again without notice or hearing. Furthermore, summons were served not upon the defendants personally, but through a certain Datu Hassan Mangondaya, who had no relation to the case.
In a supplemental complaint, respondents Atty. Cairoding P. Maruhom, the Clerk of Court, and Mr. Masbod M. Sybil, a Cash Clerk, were charged with conspiring to manipulate the raffle of the case. The record showed the case was officially raffled to Branch 10 only on April 1, 2003, yet Judge Adiong had already acted upon it in March. Sybil was also accused of improperly taking the case records from Branch 10 without authority.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law/procedure, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Judge Adiong guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. His issuance and extension of the TRO without a hearing violated Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a TRO issued without a hearing cannot exceed 72 hours and requires the applicant to post a bond. His claim of urgency under an administrative circular was untenable as the factual circumstances did not warrant such extreme measures. His reliance on a defective substituted service of summons, which was not made upon a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the defendant’s residence, further demonstrated ignorance of basic procedural rules. Such blatant disregard for settled norms constitutes gross ignorance, warranting dismissal from service.
Regarding the court personnel, Atty. Maruhom and Mr. Sybil were found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. By delivering the case records to Judge Adiong prior to raffle and by Sybil’s unauthorized removal of records from Branch 10, they actively participated in a scheme to circumvent the raffle system. This manipulation undermined the integrity of judicial assignment processes and constituted conduct grossly prejudicial to the administration of justice. Their actions betrayed the public trust reposed in court officials. Consequently, Judge Adiong was dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits, while Atty. Maruhom and Mr. Sybil were also dismissed with accessory penalties.