Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/46957
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:06:33+00:00

Document:
GOV. JOSEFINA M. DELA CRUZ, MALOLOS, BULACAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, RTC, BRANCH 10, MALOLOS, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.
Before us is a verified Complaint filed by Governor Josefina M. Dela Cruz of Bulacan on December 16, 2002 leveling against Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos the charges of Abuse of Authority and Gross Ignorance of the Law.
(1) Vacate the leased premises and surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff.
On August 27, 2001, the Municipal Trial Court, on motion, issued an Order of Execution. (Annex “F”). Defendant Atty. Galman-Cruz filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the Supreme Court has not yet finally resolved the above-entitled case (Annex “G”). On October 4, 2001, the court denied the Motion for Reconsideration (Annex “H”).
In order to prevent the execution of the final and executory judgment, defendant Galman-Cruz filed with the RTC Malolos, Bulacan a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction with Prayer for an issuance of a TRO. Branch 19, RTC Malolos, Bulacan where the case was raffled off denied the Petition (Annex “J”).
On November 12, 2001 the Writ of Execution was issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Bulacan, Bulacan but the same was returned unsatisfied because defendant Galman-Cruz refused to comply with the writ. On August 21, 2002, the court, on motion, issued a Special Writ of Demolition. Dilatory tactics were employed by defendant Galman-Cruz to delay the implementation of the writ by filing several motions, one of which was a Motion for Inhibition of the judge from hearing the Motion for Demolition. After an Alias Writ of Demolition was issued by the court, defendant Galman-Cruz, filed a Petition for Certiorari (on the Order of Demolition) with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan which was raffled off to Branch 10 presided over by the respondent judge. Respondent judge issued a TRO on November 7, 2002 and, later a preliminary injunction was issued, as prayed for by petitioner Galman-Cruz.
With this factual backdrop, Governor Dela Cruz filed the instant administrative complaint averring that the respondent judge’s issuance of an order restraining the implementation of a final and executory decision of the MTC without even conducting a hearing on the application therefor constitutes gross ignorance of the law particularly Administrative Circular No. 20-95 of the Supreme Court now embodied in Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In her Comment dated March 26, 2003, the respondent judge vigorously refutes the allegation that she erred when she issued the TRO on November 7, 2002. She maintains that what she did was merely to prevent the illegal and unauthorized demolition of petitioner’s (defendant Atty. Francisco Galman-Cruz) properties, the Flying A Hotel and the Pinoy Gas Station, on the strength of what she considers to be a questionable Writ of Demolition which is the offspring of an equally ineffective Writ of Execution. The respondent judge avers that a reading of the entire records of the case would reveal that there were vital issues which were raised by the defendants but which were left unresolved by the Special Judge (MTC Judge Ester R. Chua-Yu) who heard the case outside of her jurisdiction without any prior order or authorization to do so. She, thus, concludes that the decision is a complete nullity in itself. The respondent judge further claims that when she issued the TRO in question, the facts set forth in the verified Petition of Atty. Francisco Galman-Cruz persuaded her that there were equitable grounds for interference which called for the issuance of the TRO. According to her, there was a need for her court to interfere in the civil case because the writ of demolition was allegedly hastily issued, i.e., without first resolving the pending motions and prior to a determination by a duly licensed Geodetic Engineer of the exact metes and bounds of the 400 square meters, more or less, of the leased premises subject thereof.
The respondent judge claims that a hearing was conducted on the Motion to Quash the Temporary Restraining Order filed by the Provincial Government of Bulacan and the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. During the hearing, both parties were able to present testimonial and documentary evidence in support of their position. Allegedly, it was only after the hearing that she issued an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Hence, the respondent judge stresses that she acted in accordance with the provisions of the Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines implementing the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
In a Reply dated April 22, 2003, Governor Dela Cruz reiterates the arguments in her Complaint. She admits that there is indeed an action for the annulment of the decision in the unlawful detainer case now pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Malolos, Bulacan.
respondent judge be fined the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for ignorance of the law.
A reading of the Complaint readily reveals that what is questioned therein is the issuance of the TRO in violation of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and not the subsequent issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.
Where an application for temporary restraining order (TRO) or a writ of preliminary injunction is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading filed with the trial court, such complaint or initiatory pleading shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in the presence of such party or counsel.
The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately after raffle.
If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence. Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until a hearing on the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period … exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge.
The respondent judge is expected to be aware of this settled rule which has, in fact, been embodied in Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It was her duty to apply the rule for those who wield the judicial gavel have the duty to study our laws and their latest wrinkles. They owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice.
The respondent judge, however, miserably failed in her duty to keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence. She was obviously completely unacquainted with Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and the pertinent provisions of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. In her Comment, she even cited as authority for her issuance of a TRO the long-amended Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines implementing the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
It is well to impress upon the respondent judge that the Circular aims to restrict the ex parte issuance of a TRO only to cases of extreme urgency, in order to avoid grave injustice and irreparable injury. It is a reform measure intended to prevent the precipitate and improvident issuance of TROs. Had she made herself aware of the Circular, as she should, she would have been apprised of the history of the case, i.e., that the MTC decision has been reviewed by the Regional Trial Court, the Court of Appeals, and this Court, and rendered final and executory.
Instead, by her own admission, the respondent judge apparently rushed the issuance of the TRO without the benefit of a summary hearing and on the same day that the petition therefor was received by her sala on November 7, 2002. This is precisely the situation Administrative Circular No. 20-95 seeks to avoid.
and jurisprudence, he must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. But in this case, where the respondent displayed ignorance of the Supreme Court Circular involved to the great detriment of the Province of Bulacan where she was and is up to now holding court, seven (7) years after it was issued and five (5) years after it was incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the infraction deserves the penalty of at least a fine.
WHEREFORE, Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos is meted a FINE in the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos for failure to comply with Administrative Circular No. 20-95. She is sternly warned that a commission of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.
Puno, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Jr., concur.
 Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos, Bulacan.
 Dated August 14, 2003; Rollo, pp. 138-145.
 Id. at 3, Complaint-Affidavit of Complainant.
 Gustilo v. Real, A.M. No. MTJ--00-1250, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 1, citing Abundo v. Manio, A.M. RTJ-98-1416, August 6, 1999, 312 SCRA 1.
 Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. – No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex-parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.
 Bio v. Valera, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1074, June 20, 1996, 257 SCRA 462.
 Supra, note 6 at 106.
 Vda. De Sayson v. Zerna, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506, August 9, 2001, 362 SCRA 409.
 Supra, note 1 at 112.
 Abundo v. Manio, supra at note 15, citing Golangco v. Villanueva, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1355, September 4, 1997. See also Vda. De Sayson v. Zerna, supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.