MA. TERESA D. COLUMBRES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO, RESPONDENT.

Columbres versus Madronio

The Case

This is an administrative matter in which Ma. Teresa D. Columbres complains against Judge Aniceto L. Madronio, Sr., then presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan, over his actuations in a forcible entry case filed against her by her stepmother. The complaint questions three things: the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without a hearing, the directive to surrender a Volkswagen car that was never involved in the suit, and the judge's failure to resolve her motion to lift the writ. The case matters because it fixes the strict procedural boundaries of injunctive relief in forcible entry cases and reminds every judge that ignorance of basic rules is itself an administrative offense.

Procedural History

The complainant's letter, dated June 8, 2001, was addressed to and directly filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which referred it to the Supreme Court. Required to comment, the respondent judge submitted his comment through a return indorsement. The Court then docketed the matter as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case on the pleadings; when neither responded, the Court required them to show cause and to manifest again. The respondent judge eventually manifested his willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that he be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion and fined 10,000 pesos, with a stern warning. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter.

Facts

In October 1999, Lucille S. Columbres, stepmother of Ma. Teresa, filed a complaint for forcible entry with damages before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court presided over by Judge Madronio. She alleged that Ma. Teresa and several companions forcibly entered her premises and store, carted away goods worth 300,000 pesos, and padlocked the house and store. Ma. Teresa denied the allegations in her answer and prayed for dismissal and for damages on her counterclaim.

On November 3, 1999, the plaintiff filed a motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore her to possession. Ma. Teresa opposed it, arguing that it was filed out of time under the Rules and was not verified. When no writ had yet been issued, the plaintiff filed an urgent ex parte motion. On December 14, 1999, the judge granted it through a handwritten notation at the bottom of the motion, ordering a bond of 30,000 pesos, and on December 16, 1999, he formalized the grant by issuing the writ. The writ not only restored possession of the premises to the plaintiff but also directed Ma. Teresa to refrain from carting away the plaintiff's belongings, particularly the Volkswagen car.

On January 20, 2000, Ma. Teresa filed a motion to lift the writ and to reconsider the order to surrender the Volkswagen car, insisting the car had always been in her possession and was not involved in the suit. As of her letter in June 2001, the motion remained unresolved. The judge claimed he had already denied it, but he presented no evidence of any resolution.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction without a hearing and prior notice to the defendant.
• Whether or not the respondent judge acted irregularly in directing the surrender of the Volkswagen car, a personal property not involved in the forcible entry case.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for failing to resolve the motion to lift the writ within the reglementary period.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, on preliminary injunction in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, provides:

Section 15. Preliminary Injunction. The court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof.

This provision fixes the five-day period for filing the motion and the thirty-day period for deciding it, both of which the respondent judge violated.

Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, on the notice requirement for preliminary injunction, provides:

Section 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear 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 court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.

This provision expressly prohibits the grant of a preliminary injunction without hearing and prior notice, the very defect that tainted the writ issued in this case.

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution requires judges of lower courts to decide cases or resolve matters within three months from submission, while cases under the Rules on Summary Procedure must be resolved within thirty days; this provision grounds the finding of gross inefficiency for the unresolved motion.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The plaintiff filed her motion twelve days after the complaint, beyond the five-day period, and the judge granted it without conducting a hearing, based merely on the allegations in the application and the opposition. The Court stressed that the rules expressly prohibit the grant of a preliminary injunction without hearing and prior notice, and that while an ex parte temporary restraining order may issue in cases of great or irreparable injury, it lasts only twenty days, during which the judge must conduct a hearing on the propriety of the injunction.

On the second issue, the Court found the directive to turn over the Volkswagen car irregular. Recovery of possession of personal property is misplaced in a forcible entry case, which is a summary action to recover material or physical possession of real property when the person who originally held it was deprived of possession by force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.

On the third issue, the Court held that the judge's claim that he had denied the motion was unsupported by any evidence, and there was no way to determine whether the motion was resolved within the reglementary period or at all. The Court reiterated that delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, and that failure to decide with dispatch constitutes gross inefficiency warranting administrative sanction.

Doctrine

A preliminary injunction cannot be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party sought to be enjoined; only an ex parte temporary restraining order may issue, and only for twenty days, within which the court must hear the matter. In forcible entry cases, the motion for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction must be filed within five days from the filing of the complaint, and the court must decide it within thirty days. A forcible entry case is a summary action for the recovery of physical possession of real property only; the recovery of personal property has no place in it. Judges are not disciplined for occasional errors of judgment, but disregard of basic procedural rules constitutes grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, and unexplained delay in resolving motions constitutes gross inefficiency.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Aniceto L. Madronio, Sr. guilty of grave abuse of discretion and gross inefficiency and fined him 10,000 pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that no preliminary injunction issues without hearing and prior notice, and that in forcible entry the motion must be filed within five days and decided within thirty. Examiners use this case to test the notice requirement for injunctive relief, the limited scope of forcible entry, and the administrative liability of judges for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay.