Santiago D.

Ortega vs Judge Rogelio Dacara

A.M No. RTJ-15-2423

Jan. 11, 2017

Facts:

Ortega filed a complaint of gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law against Judge
Dacara when he denied his application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against
BFAR RO V. He stated that the judge did not know the difference between writ of preliminary
injunction and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Dacara in his decision stated that
Ortega did not present any evidence for the need to be protected, that the trial court is
prohibited to issue preliminary injunction according to P.D. 605 and that his court has no
jurisdiction since the defendants are in Pili Camarines Sur.

Issue:

Was Dacara correct in his decision to not issue the writ of preliminary injunction

Ruling:

Dacara is correct in stating that he is prohibited from issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction in accordance with sec. 1 of P.D. No. 605. The SC also stated that in order for a judge
to be rendered liable in his mistake in the exercise of his adjudicative functions there must be
fraud, malice or bad faith on his part. In this case there was no evidence to prove that Dacara
committed bad faith.