AM RTJ 98 1405; (April, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-98-1405. April 12, 2000. MARIA IMELDA MARCOS-MANOTOC and MARIA IRENE VICTORIA MARCOS-ARANETA, complainants, vs. JUDGE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, heirs of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, filed a third-party complaint against Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI) in a forfeiture case, seeking cancellation of PALI’s land titles. To protect their interest, they sought to annotate notices of lis pendens on PALI’s certificates of title. In response, PALI filed a civil case for injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, presided by respondent Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili as assisting judge, to enjoin the annotation.
On June 18, 1996, respondent judge issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO) against the annotation, setting a hearing on the preliminary injunction for June 24. However, no summary hearing was held on June 24. Instead, respondent extended the TRO for five days. On June 28, he extended it again for twelve more days, effectively keeping the TRO in force for a total period that complainants alleged violated procedural rules. The extensions were granted without the required summary hearing and without requiring PALI to post an injunction bond.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, and manifest bias and partiality in issuing and extending the TRO in violation of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent blatantly violated Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which governed the issuance of TROs in 1996. The Circular mandated that a summary hearing must be conducted within twenty-four hours after the issuance of a TRO. Respondent judge failed to conduct any such hearing before extending the TRO twice. His extensions, made without a hearing and without requiring an injunction bond, effectively converted the TRO into a preliminary injunction, circumventing the legal safeguards of notice, hearing, and a bond.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that the TRO’s total effectivity did not exceed the 20-day statutory limit, emphasizing that the violation lay in the improper manner of extension, not merely the duration. By disregarding clear procedural rules, respondent exhibited gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency. His actions also suggested bias and partiality, as he extended the TRO knowing he could not promptly hold the required hearing due to his commitments in another court, thereby favoring PALI. Considering respondent’s previous administrative sanctions for similar infractions, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a stern warning.