AM RTJ 99 1506; (August, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506. August 9, 2001. JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. DE SAYSON, complainant, vs. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josefina Merontos Vda. de Sayson filed an administrative complaint against Judge Oscar E. Zerna of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch 7, for gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and grave abuse of authority. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s issuance of a 20-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 7, 1996, in Civil Case No. 07-373, without notice and hearing. The TRO enjoined the defendants from entering a parcel of land. On June 9, 1996, a deputy sheriff served the TRO on the complainant, who was not a party to the case, and proceeded to harvest prawn and fish from her adjacent fishpond.
Respondent judge, in his defense, argued that the ex parte issuance was justified due to the extreme urgency of the situation. He claimed the matter involved perishable prawns with a ready buyer, which he believed fell under the exception in Administrative Circular No. 20-95, allowing an executive judge to issue a TRO effective for twenty days in cases of extreme urgency to prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Oscar E. Zerna is administratively liable for issuing a 20-day TRO without notice and hearing.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, misconduct, and grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on a clear misapplication of Administrative Circular No. 20-95. The Circular explicitly states that an executive judge may issue a TRO ex parte only in matters of extreme urgency to prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury. However, such an order is strictly effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance. Within this period, a summary hearing must be conducted to determine if the TRO should be extended until the hearing on the preliminary injunction.
The Court ruled that the respondent judge’s interpretation—that the Circular authorizes a 20-day ex parte TRO—was untenable and constituted gross ignorance of a basic and prevailing rule. His claim of extreme urgency based on perishable prawns was found to be an afterthought and in bad faith, as the plaintiff’s original complaint contained no such allegations. The TRO was issued merely a day after the complaint was filed, with no effort to notify defendants or conduct the required summary hearing. This disregard of procedural rules, motivated by bad faith, made him administratively liable. The Court fined him P5,000.00 with a stern warning.