View full case

SPS. DEMOCRITO v. JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL

FACTS:

The case involves a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision finding respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposing a fine of P25,000. Judge Abul was charged with assuming jurisdiction over a case without the proper raffle and notification, and issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) without notice to the adverse party. He was also accused of setting the case for a summary hearing beyond the required 72 hours and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without prior notice and hearing.

Judge Abul argues that the case was actually raffled and presents a letter from the Clerk of Court as evidence. He explains that he issued the 72-hour TRO to prevent injustice and irreparable damage to the plaintiff, but it was issued later than expected due to his absence. He admits not holding a summary hearing within 72 hours, but argues that it was impractical given the distance of the plaintiff's counsel's law office. He also denies the claim that there was no service of summons and hearing before the writ of preliminary injunction was issued, providing a Sheriff's Return of Service and a signed copy of the summons as proof. Judge Abul further submits an order and transcript of stenographic notes to demonstrate that a hearing was conducted.

The Court finds merit in the motion for reconsideration, accepting Judge Abul's explanations and evidence regarding the raffle, lack of notice and hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction, and the delay in conducting the summary hearing for the TRO. The Court emphasizes the importance of notice and opportunity to be heard for all parties concerned. It also states that judges are not administratively responsible for errors or mistakes made within their legal powers and jurisdiction, unless bad faith or deliberate injustice is proven. In this case, the complainants failed to show bad faith or malicious intent on the part of Judge Abul when issuing the TRO and preliminary injunction. Consequently, the Court grants the motion for reconsideration, setting aside its previous decision and dismissing the administrative complaint against Judge Abul.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Judge Abul was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for assuming jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2009-905 without the mandated raffle and without notifying and serving summons to the adverse party, and for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO).

  2. Whether or not Judge Abul was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for setting the case for summary hearing beyond the 72-hour period required to determine whether the TRO could be extended.

  3. Whether or not Judge Abul was guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without prior notice and hearing.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court granted Judge Abul's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the administrative complaint against him. The Court found the explanation provided by Judge Abul regarding the raffle, lack of notice and hearing, and delay in conducting the summary hearing to be satisfactory and supported by official records. The Court held that Judge Abul should not be penalized for failing to conduct the summary hearing within the 72-hour period due to the remote and inaccessible location of the trial court. The Court emphasized the importance of giving all parties the opportunity to be heard before proceeding with a summary hearing. The Court ruled that Judge Abul's actions did not constitute gross ignorance of the law as there was no showing of bad faith, ill will, or malicious motive on his part.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges are not administratively responsible for errors or mistakes committed in the exercise of their judicial functions, unless there is a showing of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.

  • To constitute gross ignorance of the law, there must be not only a contrariness to existing law and jurisprudence, but also the presence of bad faith, ill will, or malicious motive.

  • Notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental in conducting a summary hearing, without which the trial court cannot proceed.