View full case

MAYOR HADJI AMER R. SAMPIANO v. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR

FACTS:

This case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Cader P. Indar of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Malabang, Lanao del Sur. The complaint was filed by Hadji Amer R. Sampiano, the incumbent Mayor, and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. They charged the judge with various offenses in connection with the issuance of an Order in a Special Civil Action (SCA).

Prior to the filing of the administrative case, the complainant Sampiano filed a petition before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) seeking the annulment of Ogka's proclamation as mayor. The Comelec issued several orders, including one that authorized the vice-mayor to temporarily assume the duties and responsibilities as mayor. However, this order was later recalled, and the status quo was maintained pending resolution of the controversy.

Ogka, unhappy with the Comelec orders, filed a motion for reconsideration and informed the Chief Legal Counsel of PNB not to release the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Municipality of Balabagan until the controversy is resolved. Despite this, PNB-Marawi released the IRA to Sampiano and Macabato, the Municipal Treasurer. In response, Ogka filed a special civil action in the RTC, seeking to suspend the release of the IRA. Respondent Judge Indar issued an order setting the hearing of the petition and directed PNB-Marawi to defer the release of the IRA until the resolution of the case.

The petitioner, Sumulong Sampiano Ogka, filed a complaint against respondent Judge Ernesto J. China, Jr. for his Order that directed the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to defer the release of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) to the Municipal Government of Balabagan. The petitioner argued that the order was issued ex parte, without prior notice and hearing, and violated the Local Government Code (LGC), which mandates the automatic release of the local government unit's share from the national government. The Court Administrator required respondent Judge to file a comment, and respondent Judge justified his issuance of the order based on the urgency of the petition.

The main issue in the petitioner's case is the entitlement to the issuance of a TRO and permanent injunction regarding the release of the IRA to Hadji R. Sampiano or any person acting on his behalf.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner Ogka is entitled to the issuance of a TRO and permanent injunction to hold the release of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) to Hadji R. Sampiano or any person acting on his behalf.

  2. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over the action for prohibition and injunction regarding the automatic release of the local government unit's share of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).

  3. Whether or not the October 11, 2004 Order of the RTC, which directed the hold or deferment of the release of the IRA, was a valid temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction.

RULING:

  1. The Court agrees with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the October 11, 2004 Order issued by the respondent judge is essentially a preliminary injunction order and that the respondent judge failed to comply with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. As such, the respondent judge is found guilty of ignorance of the law for violating Section 5 of Rule 58 and is imposed with a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).

  2. The RTC has jurisdiction over the action for prohibition and injunction regarding the automatic release of the local government unit's share of the IRA. Section 21 of BP 129 grants the RTC original jurisdiction in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction.

  3. The October 11, 2004 Order of the RTC, which directed the hold or deferment of the release of the IRA, was a valid TRO or preliminary injunction. Although the automatic release of the IRA from the national treasury is mandated by Section 286 of the Local Government Code, the court has the discretion to defer or suspend the release of the funds when there is a legal question presented in court pertaining to the rights of the parties to receive the IRA or the propriety of issuing a TRO or preliminary injunction. In this case, the Order was consistent with the relief prayed for in the petition for prohibition and injunction. However, the Order was issued ex parte, without a hearing, and without prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined, in violation of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Once jurisdiction is vested, it is retained up to the end of the litigation. The determination of jurisdiction is based on the material allegations of the complaint and the law, irrespective of the defendant's defenses or motion to dismiss. (Stressed in the ruling)

  • Section 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides the requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, including the posting of a bond. Failure to comply with such requirements constitutes a violation of the law. (Stressed in the ruling)

  • The court has exclusive original jurisdiction in the issuance of writ of prohibition and injunction under Section 21 of B.P. 129. (Implied in the ruling)

  • The RTC has jurisdiction over actions for prohibition and injunction regarding the application or enforcement of election laws.

  • The automatic release of the IRA from the national treasury does not prevent the court from deferring or suspending the release when there is a legal question presented in court.

  • Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court prohibits the grant of preliminary injunction without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined, with exceptions for cases of extreme urgency and when great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter could be heard on notice.

  • Courts are authorized to issue ex parte temporary restraining orders (TROs) effective only for a limited period of time, typically 72 hours, to prevent great or irreparable injury to the applicant before a hearing on the matter can be conducted. Within the TRO's limited period, the court must conduct a summary hearing to determine the propriety of extending the TRO or issuing a preliminary injunction.

  • Bad faith implies a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity and a conscious doing of wrong.

  • Bad faith contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes.

  • Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.

  • In exercising judicial functions, judges must act in the most cautious manner and consider the circumstances obtaining between the parties.