Lago vs Abul, digest, law, case

SPOUSES DEMOCRITO AND OLIVIA LAGO VS. JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL

Motion for reconsideration filed b y respondent Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. (Judge Abul), Abul), Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branc !, Butuan City, finding i" guilty of gross ignorance of te la# and i"posing upon i" a fine in te a"ount of P$%,&&&.&&.

Nature:

FACTS:

Respondent 'udge #as carged #it gross ignorance of te la# for te follo#ing () assu"ing 'urisdiction o*er a case #itout te "andated raffle raffle and notification and ser*ice ser*ice of su""ons to te ad*erse party and issuing a te"porary restraining order (TR+) ($) setting te case for su""ary su""ary earing beyond te -$our re/uired by te te la# in order to deter"ine #eter te TR+ could be e0tended and (1) issuing a #rit of preli"inary in'unction #itout #itout prior notice to te co"plainants co"plainants and #itout earing. 2irst, Judge Abul stresses tat contrary to te allegations of te co"plainants, te Cler3 of Court conducted a raffle of te case in /uestion, as e*idence by te letter by te Cler3 of Court in RTC Misa"is +riental. 4e e0plained tat e issued te -$our TR+ pursuant to te $nd paragrap of 5ection %, Rule %6 of te Rules in order to a*oid in'ustice and irreparable da"age on te part of te plaintiff. Te -$our TR+ #as issued only on July -, $&&7 because e #as #a s not pysically present in te RTC, Branc !1, fro" July $, $&&7 to July 8, $&&7. 5econd, Judge Abul ad"its not conducting a su""ary earing b efore te e0piration of te -$ ours o urs fro" te issuance of te e0 parte TR+ to deter"ine #eter it could be e0tended. 4e, o#e*er, e0plained tat te olding of te su""ary earing #itin -$ ours fro" te issuance of te TR+ #as si"ply not possible because te la# office of te plaintiff9s counsel #as !! 3ilo"eters a#ay fro" Gingoog City and under tat situation, te ser*ice of te notice could only be "ade on te follo#ing day. 4ence, it #ould be i"practical to set te earing on te sa"e date #en tey recei*e rece i*e te ser*ice of  su""ons. 2inally, as to te tird carge, carge, Judge Abdul Abdul belies te sa"e by sub"itting sub"itting () a certified true true copy of te 5eriff9s Return of 5er*ice stating tat e actually ser*ed te su""ons on te co"plainants togeter #it te copy of te -$our TR+ and ($) a certified "acine cop y of te su""ons:7; :1; bearing te signature of co"plainant
>55?@ >s respondent guilty of te gross ignorance of te la#

4@=< o. it respect to te issues regarding te raffle, te lac3 of notice and earing prior to te issuance of te #rit of preli"inary in'unction, te Court is satisfied #it te e0planation of Judge Abul as it is substantiated by te official records on file. As to te issue on te delay in conducting te su""ary earing for purposes of e0tending te -$ our TR+, te Court finds te reasons ad*anced by Judge Abul to be #ellta3en. Tougt te Rules re/uire te presiding 'udge to conduct conduc t a su""ary earing before te e0piration e0p iration of te -$ours, it

could not, o#e*er, be co"plied #it because of te re"oteness and inaccessibility of te trial court fro" te partiesD addresses. Te Trial court cannot proceed #it te su""ary earing #itout gi*ing all  parties te opportunity to be eard. >t is a settled doctrine tat no e*ery error or "ista3e tat a 'udge co""its in te p erfor"ance of is duties renders i" liable, unless e is so#n to a *e acted in bad fait or #it deliberate intent to do an in'ustice. >n tis case, co"plainants failed to so# tat Judge Abul #as "oti*ated by bad fait, ill #ill or "alicious "oti*e #en e granted te TR+ and preli"inary in'unction. Co"plainants did not adduce any proof to so# tat i"propriety and bias attended te actions of te respondent 'udge.