G.R. No. RTJ-94-1257 March 6, 1998
Jose Sy Bang and Iluminada Tan, complainants, vs. Judge Antonio Mendez and Atty. Vicente Joyas, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants Jose Sy Bang and Iluminada Tan purchased properties from DBP, which were previously leased to Suarez Agro-Industrial Corporation. The corporation refused to vacate, leading to an ejectment suit by the spouses. The corporation filed an action for specific performance and annulment of sale in Makati RTC, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for improper venue. While the motion for reconsideration in the Makati case was pending, the corporation filed the same action before the RTC of Gumaca, Quezon, Branch 62, presided by respondent Judge Antonio Mendez (who was also the pairing judge of Branch 61). Judge Mendez issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction upon the corporation’s filing of a bond from Plaridel Surety and Insurance Co. The Court of Appeals later set aside this order granting the writ. Complainants charge Judge Mendez with: 1) gross impropriety for failing to lift the writ despite the Court of Appeals decision; 2) failing to resolve their motion to dissolve the writ for several months after being informed that Plaridel Surety’s authority was suspended, leaving the writ without a valid bond; and 3) conspiracy with Atty. Vicente Joyas (counsel for the corporation) in the falsification of a public document, specifically the insertion of a fake bond from Country Bankers’ Insurance Corporation into the case records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio Mendez is administratively liable for gross impropriety, undue delay in resolving motions, and conspiracy in the insertion of a fake bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Mendez liable for undue delay in resolving the complainants’ motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. His failure to act with dispatch after being informed of the invalidity of the Plaridel bond was inexcusable and prejudicial to the complainants, especially since the corporation was later found to have no clear right to the writ. However, the Court found no substantial evidence to hold Judge Mendez liable for knowledge of or conspiracy in the insertion of the fake Country Bankers bond, as it was inserted into the records when the case was about to be transferred to another branch and without his knowledge. The charge regarding failure to lift the writ immediately after the Court of Appeals decision was not sustained, as the corporation had timely filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Considering Judge Mendez had already retired from service, the Court reprimanded him and ordered a copy of the decision spread on his record. The complaint against Atty. Vicente Joyas was dismissed for lack of prima facie evidence. The Court also directed the Office of the Court Administrator to initiate an NBI investigation into the fake bond.