Issuing preliminary mandatory injunction may sometimes place a judge in hot water especially because it causes deep resentment on the party affected who may file an administrative charge against him; like what happened in this case of a Municipal Trial Court Judge (the Judge).
This case was an offshoot of a forcible entry and illegal detainer case (Case No. 817) filed by Carlos who had title to a parcel of land (OCT 6252) in Antipolo against the spouses Gina and Gino who were occupants thereon. When Carlos prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to get immediate possession of the land, the Judge set the same for a full-dress hearing. During the hearing which was even postponed for three times, the Judge allegedly refused to admit certain exhibits offered by the spouses’ counsel (Atty. Villar) which would have cautioned the Judge against granting the injunction as it would render nugatory the government’s efforts to cancel certain titles in Antipolo which were the subject of another civil case (Case No 18914).
The transcripts of said hearings however did not show that Atty. Villar offered the said documents in evidence neither did Atty. Villar invite the attention of the Judge when he noticed such omission made by the stenographer. Besides, the title of Carlos (OCT6252) was not a subject of the other Civil Case No 18914 for it was an action for the annulment of the judicial and administrative proceedings in another Land Registration Case.
So after the hearing, the Judge granted the prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction directing the spouses Gina and Gino to vacate Carlos’ land within 24 hours. The writ was issued and implemented by the Deputy Sheriff on a Saturday and on the same day the spouses voluntarily vacated their hut erected thereon. When the Sheriff returned later that same day, he found the hut still intact. But the following day, Sunday the hut was demolished apparently by Carlos.
Feeling aggrieved that they lost possession of the premises and their hut was demolished due to the issuance of the writ, Gina filed an administrative complaint against the Judge for oppression and grave misconduct and sought his dismissal from office.
Gina imputed bad faith and malice on the part of the Judge more specifically because of: (1) his refusal to admit in evidence certain exhibits presented by her lawyer which would show that the filing of the forcible entry case by Carlos (Case No. 817) was merely a diversionary tactic to frustrate the proceedings filed by the State in Civil Case 18914; (2) the fact that Carlos did not have a clear legal right nor title to the land in question because of that cancelation and reversion proceedings in Civil Case 18914; (3) the fact that a writ of preliminary injunction is not a mode of recovering possession and is an extraordinary remedy that should be sparingly issued.
Gina also claimed that the Judge, acting in grave abuse of discretion and behaving like a tool to the devious scheme of Carlos, had allowed his good office to defeat the interest of justice, frustrate the proceedings in Civil Case 18914 and thereby violated his sworn duty to do justice to everyone, uphold the interest of the State and protect the rights of all the parties without fear or favor. She further complained that the writ giving her and her husband 24 hours to vacate was issued on a Saturday, the unlawful demolition having taken place on a Sunday. Was the Judge guilty as charged?
No. For a complaint of this character to succeed, there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Judge has acted partially, maliciously, or corruptly or arbitrarily or oppressively. In issuing the writ the Judge complied with the procedural requirements by giving both parties every opportunity to present evidence to support their respective sides and reached the conclusion that the granting of the motion was warranted. He could not be held accountable for the alleged failure to accept in evidence certain documents when he had no opportunity to rule on their admissibility as they were not even presented. Nothing in the transcript of the hearings tended to show that Atty. Villar had in fact offered said documents. Atty. Villar’s failure to invite the Judge’s attention when he noticed the omission only confirmed that no such document were offered in evidence. The Court must consider only evidence on record.
The writ of injunction merely directs the spouses to vacate the land and does not order the demolition of the hut. In fact the Sheriff did not demolish the hut. If Carlos demolished the hut he alone should be blamed. He did it not as an officer of the Court and without its sanction. On the other hand, the action taken by the Judge has no bearing at all and will not affect Civil Case 1897914 as the title of Carlos is not the subject of said civil case. There is no evidence to show that the Judge exercised his judgment in a capricious and whimsical manner; that he committed abuse of discretion. Moreover, if the Judge had committed an abuse of discretion, the spouses should have availed themselves of the remedies provided by the Rules. This complaint for grave misconduct and oppression should therefore be dismissed.
But Courts should avoid issuing an order of this nature which may cause great inconvenience or hardship to a litigant on a Saturday and should give more than 24 hours for its implementation to manifest the government’s greater fealty to the concern for the plight of the underprivileged (De Guzman vs. De Leon, A.M. No 1328 MJ, July 30, 1976, 72 SCRA 177).
* * *
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net