G.R. No. RTJ-07-2047 and RTJ-07-2048, July 3, 2007
Russel Esteva Coronado, et al. vs. Judge Eddie R. Rojas

FACTS

The Gensanville Homeowners Association prevailed against E.B. Villarosa and Partners Co., Ltd. before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). The HLURB issued a Writ of Execution, and the RTC Clerk of Court and Sheriff garnished funds, including monthly water bill payments from homeowners to Villarosa. E.B. Villarosa then filed a Complaint for Injunction with a prayer for a TRO in the RTC against the court officers, arguing the garnishment would cripple the water system’s operations. Vice-Executive Judge Lubao noted the motion without action, advising recourse to appellate courts as the HLURB is a co-equal body.
The case was raffled to respondent Judge Eddie R. Rojas. He conducted a hearing and subsequently issued a 20-day TRO, followed by a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. The complainants, officers and members of the homeowners association, filed administrative cases. They alleged Judge Rojas denied them due process by not requiring them to be impleaded as indispensable parties in the injunction case. They further contended his orders improperly interfered with the HLURB’s execution process and the prior order of the Vice-Executive Judge.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Eddie R. Rojas is administratively liable for issuing a TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction in a case where the real parties-in-interest were not impleaded, and for taking cognizance of a matter involving the execution of a co-equal quasi-judicial body’s decision.

RULING

Yes, Judge Rojas is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator. Judge Rojas exhibited a gross misapprehension of fundamental rules. First, the HLURB, exercising quasi-judicial functions, is co-equal with the Regional Trial Court. Irregularities in the execution of its decision should have been raised before the HLURB itself or the appellate courts, not a co-equal RTC branch. By taking cognizance of the injunction case, Judge Rojas violated the doctrine of judicial stability.
Second, and more egregiously, Judge Rojas ignored basic procedural rules on indispensable parties. During the hearing, he himself advised E.B. Villarosa’s counsel to implead the homeowners association as the real party-in-interest, as they were the prevailing party in the HLURB case and stood to be injured by the injunction. Despite this recognition, he proceeded to issue the TRO and the injunction without the association being made a party-defendant, thereby blatantly violating their constitutional right to due process. His actions constituted gross ignorance of the law, which is not excusable by good faith. Considering his previous infraction, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).