G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-18-2537. August 14, 2019.
ABDULSAMAD P. BOGABONG, Complainant, vs. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, Presiding Judge, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Malabang, Lanao del Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Abdulsamad P. Bogabong, as elected First Kagawad, assumed the position of Barangay Chairman of Bubonga Marawi in a hold-over capacity by operation of law following the death of the incumbent. The DILG initially certified complainant’s assumption. However, Mayor Fahad U. Salic appointed Omera Hadji Isa-Ali as Barangay Chairman, whom the DILG later recognized. Complainant challenged this before the DILG-ARMM, which subsequently reinstated him as the legitimate chairman, enabling him to withdraw the barangay’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). Omera then filed a Quo Warranto case (Special Civil Action No. 1879-09) before respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong. Respondent judge granted Omera’s application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) without requiring a bond, directing a halt to the IRA disbursement. In a Decision dated August 24, 2009, respondent judge granted the Quo Warranto petition, ruling complainant had waived his right by not assuming office promptly. Complainant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Respondent judge then granted Omera’s Urgent Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, issuing a writ of execution to release the IRA to Omera, citing “impairment of public services” and deeming the appeal dilatory. The CA, in a consolidated decision, reversed respondent judge’s rulings, declaring complainant the rightful chairman and nullifying the execution pending appeal for lack of evidentiary support for the “good reasons” required. The CA also found respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law for issuing the TRO/WPI without a bond. This administrative complaint followed. Respondent judge denied the charges, claiming he acted reasonably and any error was merely judicial. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a finding of guilt for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, noting this was respondent judge’s third similar offense, with prior fines in Benito v. Balindong and Cabili v. Balindong. Respondent judge had retired, with benefits withheld.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rasad G. Balindong is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings with modification on the penalty. Respondent judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law by: (1) granting execution pending appeal without any evidence on record to substantiate the required “good reasons” under Section 2(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and speculating that the appeal was dilatory—a determination outside a trial court’s province; and (2) issuing a TRO and WPI without requiring the applicant to post a bond, in violation of Section 4(b), Rule 58, despite having no reasonable ground for exemption. These acts constituted a patent disregard of elementary rules. His prior administrative convictions for similar offenses in Benito and Cabili demonstrated a pattern of gross ignorance. While he had retired, precluding suspension, the Court imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any public office.