BENJAMIN A. RIVERA, SIMEON B. QUILANG, JR. AND NICANOR ASUNCION, PETITIONERS, VS. JUDGE TEODULO E. MIRASOL, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 23, ROXAS, ISABELA, RESPONDENT.

Rivera versus Mirasol

The Case

This is an administrative case for gross ignorance of the law filed with the Supreme Court against Judge Teodulo Mirasol of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Roxas, Isabela. The complainants, Benjamin Rivera, Simeon Quilang, Jr. and Nicanor Asuncion, were the defendants in a civil case for recovery of possession of property brought by the Municipality of Roxas, Isabela. They charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction and consequent writs of demolition on the strength of an unverified application and without any bond. The case matters because it draws the line between a mere error of judgment, which is not disciplinable, and a patent disregard of well-known rules, which is gross ignorance of the law. It also settles that a judge's retirement does not moot an administrative complaint filed while he was still in service.

Procedural History

The complainants filed an Affidavit-Complaint with the Supreme Court on February 22, 2002. The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the complaint, and the Deputy Court Administrator, endorsed by the Court Administrator, recommended its dismissal for lack of merit, on the view that the issues raised were judicial in nature and were already pending before the Court of Appeals on certiorari. The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit in a Resolution dated September 18, 2002.

The complainants moved for reconsideration, informing the Court that the Court of Appeals had already decided their certiorari petition on August 27, 2002 and had annulled the questioned orders. That decision became final and executory on September 20, 2002, and entry of judgment was made. In his Comment, the respondent judge maintained that, at most, he committed a mere error of judgment. The Deputy Court Administrator, again endorsed by the Court Administrator, then found the respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos, to be deducted from the 20,000 pesos retained from his retirement benefits, with the balance released to him. The Supreme Court adopted these findings and recommendations.

Facts

On September 16, 1999, the Municipality of Roxas, Isabela filed Civil Case Number 618 for recovery of possession of property against the complainants, and the case was raffled to the sala of the respondent judge. On September 28, 1999, before summons had been served, the municipality filed an unverified motion for preliminary mandatory injunction, with a motion for a writ of demolition. The complainants filed their answer opposing the motion.

On November 24, 1999, the respondent issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injunction and placing the municipality in possession of the areas occupied by the complainants. He denied their motion for reconsideration. On February 15, 2000, the municipality filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition, which the respondent granted in his order dated February 18, 2000. By virtue of a writ of demolition issued on March 14, 2000, the structures built by the complainants on the subject property were demolished. From April 2000 to January 2002, no pre-trial was conducted or even scheduled in the civil case.

On February 1, 2002, the municipality filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of demolition with regard to the remaining structures, which the respondent granted on February 8, 2002. The complainants brought the matter to the Court of Appeals by a special action for certiorari. The Court of Appeals annulled the respondent's questioned orders, holding that the order granting the preliminary injunction was not validly and legally issued because the application was not verified and no bond was executed, and that the writ of demolition, having issued pursuant to an invalid injunction, had no legal basis to stand on its own.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction and writs of demolition on the basis of an unverified application and without a bond.
• Whether or not the respondent judge's compulsory retirement from the service rendered the administrative complaint moot and academic.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 3.02 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

This rule fixes the standard of diligence the respondent failed to meet when he granted the injunction without verifying the application.

Section 4, paragraph a, of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides:

A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when the application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.

This is the very rule the respondent disregarded, since the application before him was unverified and no bond was executed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. It stressed that the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the questioned orders is already final and executory, so the parties are bound by the appellate court's findings, which the Court must respect. The respondent did not deny that he issued the writ of preliminary injunction and the concomitant writs of demolition on an unverified application. The Court acknowledged that not every error or mistake of a judge renders him liable, and that a judge may not be disciplined for an error of judgment absent proof that the error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice. But it held that a judge must still observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his official functions.

The Court then turned to the rule, quoting it:

A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when the application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded.

It emphasized that the rule is very explicit in requiring verification, and that the absence of verification makes an application for preliminary injunction patently insufficient both in form and substance. Thus, the issuance of the writ was not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment, but a patent disregard of well-known rules, and therefore constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. The Court reminded judges of their pressing responsibility to keep abreast with the law and the latest decisions of the Supreme Court, and declared that ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one, not even judges: ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusat, meaning ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's retirement did not render the case moot and academic. The complaint was filed on February 22, 2002, before the respondent compulsorily retired on April 4, 2002. The Court therefore retained authority to pursue the administrative complaint, because cessation from office by reason of retirement does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed against a judge while he was still in service.

Doctrine

First, a judge may not be disciplined for a mere error of judgment absent proof that the error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice. Second, this protection does not excuse a judge from observing propriety, discreetness and due care, and a patent disregard of well-known rules is gross ignorance of the law. Third, under Section 4, paragraph a, of Rule 58, a preliminary injunction may be granted only upon a verified application, and the absence of verification makes the application patently insufficient in both form and substance. Fourth, ignorance of the law excuses no one, not even judges, who must keep abreast with the law and the latest decisions of the Supreme Court. Fifth, retirement from office does not moot an administrative complaint filed while the judge was still in service.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration, found Judge Mirasol guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and fined him 10,000 pesos, to be deducted from the 20,000 pesos retained from his retirement benefits, with the remaining 10,000 pesos ordered released to him.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a patent disregard of well-known rules, such as granting a preliminary injunction on an unverified application, is gross ignorance of the law and not a mere error of judgment. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between an error of judgment and gross ignorance of the law, and to test whether retirement moots an administrative complaint filed while the judge was still in service.