AM RTJ 04 1885; (July, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1885. July 14, 2004. BENJAMIN A. RIVERA, SIMEON B. QUILANG, JR. and NICANOR ASUNCION, petitioners, vs. JUDGE TEODULO E. MIRASOL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, defendants in a recovery of possession case, charged respondent Judge Teodulo E. Mirasol with gross ignorance of the law. They alleged that in Civil Case No. 618, the plaintiff Municipality filed an unverified motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction and demolition. Despite opposition, respondent Judge granted the writ, placing the Municipality in possession, and later issued a writ of demolition, resulting in the destruction of complainants’ structures. Complainants sought reconsideration to no avail. They elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via certiorari.
Respondent Judge, in his defense, argued the administrative complaint was moot due to his compulsory retirement and that the issues were judicial, properly within the appellate court’s certiorari jurisdiction. Initially, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) finding that the issues were judicial. However, complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, informing the Court that the Court of Appeals had already annulled respondent’s orders, finding the writ of preliminary injunction was issued without the required verified application and bond, and that the consequent writ of demolition had no legal basis.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction and a writ of demolition based on an unverified application.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court granted complainants’ motion for reconsideration. The final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals established that the orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Rules of Court explicitly mandate that a preliminary injunction may be granted only when the application is verified and shows facts entitling the applicant to relief. Respondent’s issuance of the writ absent verification was a patent disregard of a clear, well-known rule, not a mere error of judgment. Gross ignorance of the law exists when a judge acts contrary to an elementary, unambiguous statutory provision.
The Court emphasized that retirement does not render an administrative case moot, as the complaint was filed before respondent’s compulsory retirement. The Court retains jurisdiction to hold him accountable for acts committed while in office. Consequently, respondent Judge was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.