G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225; September 6, 2011
ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RASAD G. BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, Respondent.

FACTS

Civil Case No. 06-29542 for damages was decided with finality against Mindanao State University (MSU) by Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC. A writ of execution was issued, and Sheriff Gerard Peter Gaje served a Notice of Garnishment on MSU’s account at Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Marawi City Branch. MSU filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction against the LBP and Sheriff Gaje before the RTC of Marawi City, Branch 8, presided by respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong. Respondent Judge set a hearing and subsequently issued a TRO restraining Sheriff Gaje from garnishing the funds from MSU’s account. Later, after a motion to dismiss was filed by the sheriff on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case. Complainant Atty. Tomas Ong Cabili, counsel for the judgment creditors, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Abuse of Discretion, and/or Grave Misconduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Judicial Service for interfering with the order of a co-equal court by issuing the TRO. Respondent Judge denied interference, explaining he gave parties an opportunity to be heard and eventually dismissed the petition. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of ₱40,000.00, noting it was his second offense.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that interfered with the execution of a final judgment rendered by a co-equal court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation, finding a clear violation of the elementary doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference. This doctrine prohibits a court from interfering by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction. The court that rendered the final judgment retains jurisdiction over its execution and all incidental proceedings. By issuing a TRO to enjoin the sheriff from implementing the writ of execution issued by Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC, respondent Judge disregarded this fundamental rule. His awareness of the matter was evident from his own order quoting MSU’s allegations. The proper remedy for MSU, the judgment obligor, was to seek relief from the same issuing court or through a petition for certiorari with a higher court, not by filing an injunction suit in another co-equal court. The Court cited jurisprudence where similar acts warranted administrative sanctions. Considering this was respondent Judge’s second offense, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00).