G.R. No. A.M. RTJ-23-031. March 28, 2023.
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Complainant, vs. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from incidents in Civil Case No. 95-45 (Abenon v. Shell Oil Company), where respondent Judge George E. Omelio, as Presiding Judge of RTC, Davao City, Branch 14, issued orders directing the execution and garnishment of US$17,000,000.00 against subsidiaries and affiliates of Shell Oil Company, including complainant Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC). The Abenon case involved claims by banana plantation workers for damages due to exposure to a pesticide. A compromise agreement was approved by the RTC of Panabo City. When execution was sought, the case was transferred to Judge Omelio’s court. PSPC, arguing it was not a signatory to the compromise and not an affiliate of Shell, filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) an application for a writ of preliminary injunction to halt the garnishment. On October 16, 2009, the CA 23rd Division granted the injunction via a Resolution signed by two members (Justices Lim and Ayson), with the third member (Justice Dimagiba) on leave. A corresponding Writ was issued on October 19, 2009. On the same date, Judge Omelio issued an Order declaring the CA Resolution “not regular” and without force, citing that it was signed by only two members of the Division, contrary to Section 11 of B.P. Blg. 129. He also issued a Warrant of Arrest against officials of Banco De Oro for indirect contempt for reluctance to release garnished funds. PSPC filed this complaint on October 20, 2009, charging Judge Omelio with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge George E. Omelio is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Omelio is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court found that Judge Omelio displayed gross ignorance of basic procedural rules when he refused to recognize the validity of the CA’s writ of preliminary injunction. A writ of preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order, not a final resolution. Under Section 5, Rule VI of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, in matters of extreme urgency, two justices may act upon an application for such writ, with subsequent ratification by the absent member. Judge Omelio’s insistence that the CA Resolution required three signatures under B.P. Blg. 129 was a blatant misapplication of the law, demonstrating utter lack of familiarity with rules he was bound to know. His act of declaring the CA injunction ineffective and proceeding with execution constituted gross ignorance of the law. Regarding the charge of grave abuse of authority for issuing the warrant of arrest, the Court found this was absorbed in the finding of gross ignorance, as the arrest warrant was a consequence of his erroneous disregard of the CA injunction. The charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct was likewise deemed absorbed. Considering Judge Omelio had already been dismissed from service in a previous administrative case (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2494, October 3, 2017), and was thus no longer in office, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00, deductible from any accrued leave credits, in lieu of dismissal.