View full case

PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT TWO v. BERNABE B. MENDOZA

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Nicanor M. Collado on behalf of Philippine Investment Two (SPV-AMC), Incorporated (PI TWO) against Presiding Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza (respondent Judge Mendoza) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela. PI TWO is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) corporation empowered to acquire assets from banking and financial institutions. PI TWO acquired a property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-374946 from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).

PI TWO filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the property, which was granted. The heirs of Wilson Nuesa later filed a complaint for quieting of title, alleging that the deed of absolute sale between Nuesa and Adelaine Samonte, as well as subsequent transactions, were null and void.

Respondent Judge Mendoza admitted the amended complaint and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) upon the posting of a bond. The TRO was later extended. PI TWO objected to the TRO and its extension, arguing non-receipt of the summons for the quieting of title case and lack of jurisdiction over them. PI TWO received a writ of preliminary injunction issued by respondent Judge Mendoza.

The heirs of Nuesa filed a motion to substitute cash bond with an injunction bond, which respondent Judge Mendoza granted.

PI TWO filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Mendoza for gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Respondent Judge Mendoza defended his actions, stating there was an extreme urgency to issue the TRO and that sufficient evidence was presented. He admitted oversight in setting a hearing for the motion to substitute the bond but argued it did not affect the parties' rights.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondent Judge Mendoza made missteps in issuing the orders. The OCA recommended that respondent Judge Mendoza be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be fined Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) with a stern warning.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondent Judge Mendoza's failure to serve the summons on the party enjoined and setting the summary hearing beyond the 72-hour period for a temporary restraining order (TRO) constitutes a violation of the Rules of Court and Administrative Circular No. 20-95.

  2. Whether the extension of the 72-hour TRO into a 20-day TRO by respondent Judge Mendoza is valid.

  3. Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

  4. Whether or not the respondent judge's behavior merits disciplinary action.

RULING:

  1. Yes, respondent Judge Mendoza's failure to serve the summons on the party enjoined and setting the summary hearing beyond the 72-hour period for a TRO constitutes a violation of the Rules of Court and Administrative Circular No. 20-95. Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules explicitly states that the adverse party should be immediately served with the summons and a copy of the complaint. Additionally, the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO should be conducted within the 72-hour period. Respondent Judge Mendoza's failure to comply with these requirements shows a gross ignorance of the law.

  2. No, the extension of the 72-hour TRO into a 20-day TRO by respondent Judge Mendoza is not valid. Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules provides that the total period of effectivity of a TRO, including the original 72 hours, should not exceed 20 days. The effectivity of the 72-hour TRO issued by respondent Judge Mendoza on September 20, 2017, could only be extended until October 10, 2017. Therefore, respondent Judge erroneously extended the effectivity of the 72-hour TRO until October 12, 2017, which is two days beyond the period explicitly provided by the Rules.

  3. The respondent judge is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He is hereby fined in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) and is given a stern warning of more severe consequences for a repetition of the same or any similar infraction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Ignorance of the law by a judge can be the mainspring of injustice.

  • Judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law when it is basic.

  • Gross ignorance of the law is committed when an error is gross or patent, deliberate or malicious.

  • Gross ignorance of the law cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.

  • Judges should exhibit competence, integrity, and independence, and be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.

  • A temporary restraining order (TRO) may be issued ex parte for a limited period of 72 hours if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury. A summary hearing is required to determine if the 72-hour TRO should be extended.

  • A TRO may also be issued ex parte for 20 days if it appears 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 trial court has 20 days from its issuance to resolve the application for preliminary injunction, and if no action is taken during this period, the TRO is deemed to have expired.

  • The adverse party should be immediately served with the summons and a copy of the complaint in cases involving TROs.

  • The total period of effectivity of a TRO, including the original 72 hours, should not exceed 20 days, as provided by Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules.

  • The behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, including judges, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.

  • Judges should conduct themselves in a manner that merits respect and upholds the integrity of the Judiciary.