ROGER F. BORJA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZORAYDA H. SALCEDO, RESPONDENT.

Borja versus Salcedo

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Roger Borja against Judge Zorayda Salcedo, the presiding judge of a regional trial court branch in San Pablo City. Borja accuses the judge of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion for issuing a temporary restraining order without complying with the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and with Supreme Court Administrative Circular Number 20-95. The case matters because it draws the line between a judge's honest error, which is not disciplinable, and a judge's conscious disregard of a clear and basic rule, which is. It also fixes who may issue a temporary restraining order without a hearing, and for how long.

Procedural History

The complaint, dated January 11, 2001, was initially denied due course by then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, who informed the complainant that the subject matter was judicial in nature and that judicial remedies under the Rules of Court had yet to be exhausted. The complainant moved for reconsideration, citing an order of another judge of the same court dissolving the questioned restraining order for failure to comply with Administrative Circular Number 20-95. The Office of the Court Administrator then reported and recommended, and the Supreme Court required the respondent judge to comment and required the judge who dissolved the order to explain. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation, which recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be fined 5,000 pesos. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter.

Facts

On January 2, 2001, a civil case for declaration of nullity of a board resolution, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, was filed with the regional trial court of San Pablo City and raffled to the branch presided over by Judge Salcedo. The following day, January 3, 2001, the judge issued an order granting the restraining order. The order set the hearing on the application for preliminary injunction for the next morning, directed the defendants to appear and show cause, and enjoined them from enforcing the board resolution in the meantime. A copy of the order was received by the complainant that afternoon.

The complainant alleged that the procedure violated the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: that in a multi-sala court only the executive judge may issue a temporary restraining order without notice, good for 72 hours; that the notice of raffle was not preceded or accompanied by service of summons with the complaint, affidavit, and bond; that no summary hearing was conducted within 24 hours after the sheriff's return; and that the order was issued without the required bond and without any allegation of extreme urgency and grave or irreparable injury.

The respondent judge inhibited herself, and the case was re-raffled to the branch of Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali. On January 19, 2001, Judge Balisi-Umali dissolved the restraining order because it was issued in violation of Administrative Circular Number 20-95, the record showing no order setting a summary hearing for service on all the parties. In her defense, the respondent judge adopted a comment she had filed in an earlier administrative case brought by the same complainant, which had been dismissed for lack of merit, and insisted on her impartiality and good faith.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Salcedo is administratively liable for issuing a temporary restraining order without conducting the summary hearing required by Administrative Circular Number 20-95.
• Whether or not her liability is for gross ignorance of the law, or for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
• Whether or not Judge Balisi-Umali acted properly in dissolving the restraining order issued by a court of co-equal jurisdiction.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular Number 20-95 provides:

Where an application for temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading filed with the trial court, such complaint or initiatory pleading shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in the presence of such party or counsel.

This fixes the general rule that the application is raffled and heard only with notice to the adverse party.

The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately after raffle.

This is the provision the respondent judge failed to observe, since she issued the order without any summary hearing.

If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence. Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until a hearing in the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period of the TRO exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge.

This is the only exception allowing issuance without a prior hearing, and it belongs to the executive judge alone, which the respondent was not.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge failed to comply with Administrative Circular Number 20-95. It was undisputed that she issued the restraining order without the required summary hearing, and there was no showing that the case fell under the exceptional circumstances in which the executive judge may issue an order before raffle without a hearing. As presiding judge of the branch to which the case was raffled, she should have known that a summary hearing was indispensable. The Court stressed that the holding of a summary hearing is mandatory, and that only the executive judge may issue a temporary restraining order without notice, under exceptional circumstances and following a specified procedure.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent was liable not for gross ignorance of the law but for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. It noted that barely a year before this complaint, another administrative case had been lodged against her by the same complainant concerning the issuance of a restraining order in another civil case without complying with the same circular. That earlier case had been dismissed for lack of merit, but the dismissal sidetracked the issue. Having been earlier apprised of the circular, she could not claim ignorance of the law. Her conscious disregard of a basic rule warranted administrative liability. The Court found no allegation or proof of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, and imposed a fine of 5,000 pesos, consistent with its earlier rulings.

On the third issue, the Court accepted the explanation of Judge Balisi-Umali. While no court may nullify the judgments or processes of a court of co-equal jurisdiction, that rule did not apply, because she did not nullify the process of another court. She merely acted as the presiding judge over a case duly assigned to her branch by raffle after the respondent had inhibited herself upon motion of the complainant.

Doctrine

A temporary restraining order may be issued only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within 24 hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The only exception is a matter of extreme urgency, where grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless the order is issued immediately; in that case, only the executive judge may issue it, effective for 72 hours only, and the executive judge must summon the parties for conference and raffle the case in their presence, after which the presiding judge conducts a summary hearing, with the total period never exceeding 20 days. A presiding judge who issues a restraining order without the summary hearing is administratively liable. A judge may not be held liable for every erroneous order, and good faith is a defense; but where the judge had been earlier apprised of the rule and consciously disregarded it, the liability is for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, not merely for ignorance of the law.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Zorayda Salcedo guilty of grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, fined her 5,000 pesos, and sternly warned her that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: a summary hearing is mandatory before a temporary restraining order issues, and only the executive judge may issue one without notice, for 72 hours only. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, and the limits on a court's power to dissolve a co-equal court's process.