G.R. No. RTJ-08-2100; January 31, 2008
MAYOR SHIRLEY M. PANGILINAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE INOCENCIO M. JAURIGUE and ATTY. CIRILO Q. TEJOSO, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Shirley M. Pangilinan, then Mayor of Paluan, Occidental Mindoro, filed an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, and disobedience to a superior order against respondents Judge Inocencio M. Jaurigue and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Cirilo Q. Tejoso, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao. The controversy stemmed from an election protest filed against Pangilinan. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) issued a Status Quo Order on November 13, 2001, directing parties to maintain the status quo pending its resolution. Conformably, respondent Judge issued an Order on December 11, 2001, deferring the revision of ballots.
Despite the standing Status Quo Order, respondent Judge issued an Order dated June 5, 2002, directing the resumption of the ballot revision on June 10, 2002. This Order was merely stamped “Original Signed” by respondent Clerk of Court Tejoso upon the alleged instruction of Judge Jaurigue. Complainant filed an urgent motion for postponement, but respondent Tejoso proceeded with the revision of ballots on June 10 and 11, 2002, in the absence of the presiding judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for issuing and implementing the June 5, 2002 Order directing the resumption of revision, despite a subsisting COMELEC Status Quo Order.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Justice. Respondent Judge Jaurigue was found guilty of gross inefficiency, serious misconduct, and gross neglect of duty. His defense—that he relied on a separate COMELEC Order in a different election case (Quintos v. Villarosa) to justify resuming revision—was untenable. A judge is mandated to be diligent in verifying the applicability of legal precedents or orders. The COMELEC’s Status Quo Order in Pangilinan’s specific case was clear and subsisting; it was gross inefficiency and neglect to ignore it based on an inapplicable order from a different case. His act constituted disobedience to a lawful order from a superior body (COMELEC), amounting to serious misconduct.
Respondent Clerk of Court Atty. Tejoso, Jr. was reprimanded for failure to exercise reasonable diligence. As branch clerk, he had a duty to ensure the regularity of court processes. By stamping “Original Signed” on the June 5, 2002 Order without the judge’s actual signature and by proceeding with the revision despite the pending motion and the known Status Quo Order, he exhibited a lack of due care. The Court suspended Judge Jaurigue for six months without pay and reprimanded Atty. Tejoso with a warning.