G.R. No. RTJ-04-1857. November 23, 2004.
Gabriel Dela Paz, Officer-in-Charge, Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE), complainant, vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong, RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gabriel Dela Paz, Officer-in-Charge of the Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE), charged respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong with gross ignorance of the law and/or abuse of authority. The charges stemmed from the judge’s actions in Special Civil Action No. 813-02, a petition for mandamus with a preliminary mandatory injunction filed by Pacasum College, Inc. against FAPE. On March 4, 2002, respondent judge issued a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction ordering FAPE and its officials, including Chairman Raul S. Roco, to prepare and issue a check for P4,000,000.00 to the college president, under pain of arrest and contempt. The writ was issued without prior notice or hearing to FAPE. The following day, March 5, 2002, the judge ordered sheriffs in Makati and Mandaluyong to serve the writ, which was to be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction of his court (the Twelfth Judicial Region). On May 6, 2002, the judge issued another order directing a Makati sheriff to garnish FAPE’s bank deposits to collect the P4,000,000.00. Furthermore, in an unrelated case, Corporate Case No. 010, where FAPE was not a party, the judge issued an Order dated April 22, 2002, referencing and seeking to enforce the writ from the mandamus case. Respondent judge later dismissed Special Civil Action No. 813-02 on June 21, 2002, and recalled the March 4 and 5 orders, arguing the administrative complaint was moot. Complainant countered that the judge’s actions had paralyzed FAPE’s operations until the Court of Appeals issued a restraining order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and/or abuse of authority for: (1) issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without notice and hearing; (2) issuing a writ enforceable outside his court’s territorial jurisdiction; and (3) issuing an order against a non-party in an unrelated case from which he had previously inhibited himself.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator.
1. Gross Ignorance of the Law: The judge violated Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined. His issuance of the writ on March 4, 2002, without any notice or hearing to FAPE, constituted a blatant disregard of this basic, mandatory rule. His claim that the subsequent dismissal of the case rendered the complaint moot was rejected, as the administrative issue concerns his violation of procedure, which is not negated by a later judicial action.
2. Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction: The judge violated Section 21 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, which provides that a Regional Trial Court can issue writs of injunction enforceable only within its region or, if compelling reasons exist, within another region with prior endorsement from the latter’s Executive Judge. The judge ordered enforcement in Makati (National Capital Region) without any such endorsement or stated compelling reasons, demonstrating ignorance of this jurisdictional limit.
3. Grave Abuse of Authority: The judge’s Order of April 22, 2002, in Corporate Case No. 010, directing FAPE—a non-party to that case—to comply with the writ from the mandamus case, was a clear abuse of authority. This abuse was compounded by the fact that the judge had already inhibited himself from hearing Corporate Case No. 010 on November 21, 2001, and had forwarded its records, thus divesting himself of any authority to issue orders in that case.
The Supreme Court held that a judge’s failure to follow basic legal rules and procedures constitutes gross ignorance of the law, which is a serious charge. The subsequent dismissal of the underlying case does not exonerate him from administrative liability. Respondent Judge Santos B. Adiong was found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. He was SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without pay and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.