Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

GABRIEL DELA PAZ, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B.

ADIONG
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857. November 23, 2004
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS:
Pacasum College, Inc., represented by Saripada Ali Pacasum, filed
with the RTC, a petition for mandamus with application for a preliminary
mandatory injunction, against FAPE, represented by Roberto T. Borromeo,
Secretary Raul S. Roco, Ramon C. Bacani and Carolina C. Porio. respondent
judge issued an Order granting the same petition. FAPE, through counsel,
filed an omnibus motion set aside orders and to dismiss the case. In its
motion, FAPE claimed that it was not served with summons; that the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction which was intended to be enforced in
Makati is outside the jurisdiction of the Twelfth Judicial Region of RTC
Marawi City; that Section 21 of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as
amended, provides that the RTC has jurisdiction to issue writ of injunction
which may be enforced in any part of its respective regions; that the writ was
granted without hearing and notice; neither was there a showing of an
affidavit that would establish that great or irreparable injury would result to
the applicant before the matter can be heard nor was there a showing that a
bond had been filed.
In his letter-complaint, dela Paz claims as follows: Respondents issuance of
the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was in glaring disregard and
defiance of Section 21 of B.P. Blg. 129 which limits the authority of RTCs to
issue writs of mandamus within their respective regions. The issuance of the
writ was in disregard of the notice and hearing requirements under Rule 58
of the Rules of Court.
Respondent explains in his second indorsement that he had ordered the
dismissal of Special Civil Action No. 813-02 per his resolution dated June
21, 2002 and that he had recalled and set aside his questioned orders dated
March 4 and 5, 2002. He submits that with the dismissal of the said case, the
herein complaint has become moot and academic and should no longer be
given due course. The Court Administrator submitted his Report finding
respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of law and grave abuse of
authority and recommending that he be meted with the penalty of suspension
from office for a period of six (6) months without pay with a warning that
the commission of a similar act in the future will warrant his dismissal from
the service.
ISSUE: WON the OCAs finding of grave abuse of discretion by the
respondent judge is proper.

RULING:
The rule on injunction as found under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court
provides that the same can only be granted upon a verified application
showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded and upon the
filing of a bond executed to the party or person enjoined. It is also provided
that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior
notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined unless shown that great or
irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be
heard on notice; that a temporary restraining order may be issued effective
for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party sought to be
enjoined.
A perusal of the Order dated March 4, 2002 failed to show that respondent
conducted a hearing before the injunction was granted or that complainant
was given prior notice thereof. In fact, complainant stressed that FAPE was
not at all served with summons before the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction was issued. It was not also shown whether the applicant posted a
bond and the same was approved before the order granting the preliminary
mandatory injunction was issued. A bond is required unless exempted by the
court. The Order merely stated that the petition was sufficient in form and
substance without even stating the facts which would support the granting of
the injunction.
Respondents court is in Marawi City which falls within the twelfth judicial
region. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by respondent
requiring FAPE, which is holding office in Makati City, and its officials who
have their residences in Metro Manila, to issue a check in the amount
of P4,000,000.00 payable to Datu Saripada Ali Pacasum, is outside the
territorial jurisdiction of respondents court. Thus, the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction issued by the respondent is void considering that his
authority to issue an injunction is limited only to and operative only within
his respective provinces or districts.
Consequently, the Order dated March 5, 2002 directing the sheriff of Makati
and Mandaluyong to serve the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to
FAPE, et al. is a jurisdictional faux pas as the respondent can only enforce
his orders within the territorial jurisdiction of his court.
Likewise, respondent has also shown abuse of his authority in issuing his
Order dated April 22, 2002 in Corporate Case No. 010 requiring FAPE, a
non-party to the case, to comply with the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction issued in Special Civil Action No. 813-02. Notably, respondent in
his Order dated November 21, 2001 inhibited himself from hearing the
corporate case and forwarded the entire records to the OCA for further
assignment to other designated corporate courts of the RTC in Lanao and

Cagayan de Oro City. Despite this pending matter, respondent acted on a


motion to set aside his Order of inhibition citing the fact that the records of
the case which he forwarded to the OCA were returned to his court for
further proceedings. He then concluded that there exists no legal impediment
to the enforcement of the previous orders of this Court particularly a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction issued in Special Civil Action No. 813-02
dated March 4, 2002 directing the respondent FAPE to release to the
petitioner the sum of P4,000,000.00 representing the petitioners entitlement
for the School Year 2001-2002. Although the respondent in Corporate Case
No. 010 is the petitioner in Special Civil Action No. 813-02, (where the
subject preliminary mandatory injunction was issued and now the basis of
this administrative complaint) FAPE, however, was not a party in the
Corporate Case.