G.R. No. RTJ-05-1901. November 30, 2006.
FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., represented by AMBROCIA G. CANCIO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JIMMY H. F. LUCZON, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Branch 1, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fortune Life Insurance sought to foreclose a real estate mortgage executed by Maria Victoria Realty and Development Corporation (MVRDC). MVRDC filed a petition for annulment of mortgage with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to stop the foreclosure sale. The Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO. After the case was raffled to his sala, respondent Judge Luczon, Jr., upon MVRDC’s motion, extended the TRO for 17 days without conducting a summary hearing. Subsequently, he issued a writ of preliminary injunction, again without a prior hearing, based solely on MVRDC’s allegations of potential irreparable injury.
Complainant filed an administrative charge against the judge for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and bias. Complainant argued that the issuance of the injunction without a hearing violated procedural rules, especially since MVRDC’s petition lacked an affidavit of merit and the foreclosure was a clear contractual right. Respondent Judge defended his actions by citing the urgency to prevent irreparable injury and noted he later dissolved the injunction after a motion from the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jimmy H. F. Luczon, Jr. is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without conducting a mandatory summary hearing.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge’s duty to be proficient in the law is paramount. Administrative Circular No. 20-95 mandates that a TRO issued by an Executive Judge is effective for only 72 hours. Its extension by the presiding judge, as well as the grant of a preliminary injunction, requires a summary hearing to determine the existence of a clear legal right and a threat of irreparable injury. The respondent Judge’s issuance of the 17-day TRO extension and the preliminary injunction without any hearing constituted a blatant disregard of this explicit rule.
The Court rejected the judge’s defense of urgency, stating that the alleged irreparable injury was unsubstantiated without a hearing, especially given the complainant’s clear right to foreclose and the debtor’s statutory right of redemption. While other charges were deemed judicial in nature, the failure to conduct a hearing was a fundamental procedural violation that transcended mere error of judgment. It constituted gross ignorance of the law, defined as a disregard of basic and well-settled rules. The Court fined Judge Luczon, Jr. P21,000 and sternly warned him that a repetition would warrant a more severe sanction.