A.M. No. RTJ-05-1904; February 18, 2005
Bagong West Kabulusan 1 Neighborhood Association, Inc., represented by its Acting President Wenefredo S. Quedor, complainant, vs. Judge Alberto L. Lerma, Respondent.

FACTS

CST Enterprises, Inc. secured a final and executory ejectment judgment from the Muntinlupa MeTC against 39 individuals occupying its lots. A writ of demolition was issued. The Bagong West Kabulusan Neighborhood Association, Inc., claiming to represent underprivileged residents, filed a separate Complaint for Injunction with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the sheriff (Civil Case No. 00-233) before the RTC, presided by respondent Judge Alberto L. Lerma. The Association argued that the demolition violated R.A. No. 7279 (Urban Development and Housing Act), which requires adequate relocation prior to eviction. Concurrently, the individual defendants filed a petition before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 61991), which initially issued a TRO against the demolition.
The Association’s injunction case was raffled to Judge Lerma’s branch. After a hearing where the sheriff was absent, Judge Lerma denied the application for a TRO in an Order dated February 5, 2001, finding no great or irreparable injury. The Association filed motions for reconsideration and to declare the sheriff in default. The Court of Appeals later dismissed the defendants’ petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 61991) on March 19, 2001. The Association alleged that Judge Lerma deliberately delayed resolving the main injunction case and the pending incidents, allowing the demolition to proceed and rendering their case moot.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alberto L. Lerma is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross neglect of duty, and manifest bias and partiality in handling Civil Case No. 00-233.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint and ABSOLVED Judge Lerma of administrative liability. The Court found no evidence of gross ignorance, neglect, bias, or partiality. Judge Lerma’s denial of the TRO was a judicious exercise of discretion, as he correctly ruled that a TRO is an extraordinary remedy requiring a clear showing of a right in esse and a urgent necessity to prevent serious damage. His finding that no great or irreparable injury was imminent was a legal assessment, not ignorance. The alleged delay in resolving the main case was not substantiated; records showed the case was actively being heard, with settings in April and June 2001. The complaint was filed in September 2001, before the 90-day period to decide the case had lapsed from the last hearing. Furthermore, the Association was not the real party-in-interest, as it did not represent the actual defendants in the ejectment suits, and it engaged in forum shopping by filing the injunction case while the same defendants had a pending petition before the Court of Appeals addressing the same demolition. Judge Lerma’s actions were within the bounds of judicial discretion and did not constitute gross misconduct warranting administrative sanction.