Friday's Holdings, Inc. v. De Guia-Cipriano

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-15-1863. December 9, 2015.]

FRIDAY'S HOLDINGS, INC., REPRESENTED BY MAURO B. BADIOLA, complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE MARIBEL D. DE GUIA-CIPRIANO, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BURUANGA-MALAY, KALIBO, AKLAN, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated09 December 2015which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. MTJ-15-1863 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2747-MTJ] — (Friday's Holdings Inc., represented by Mauro B. Badiola v. Presiding Judge Maribel D. de Guia-Cipriano, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Buruanga-Malay, Kalibo, Aklan)

In its Verified Complaint, 1 dated February 26, 2015, before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Friday's Holdings, Inc. (complainant), charged Judge Maribel de Guia-Cipriano (respondent), Presiding Judge of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga-Malay, 6th Judicial Region, Kalibo, Aklan (MCTC), with Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order in a case covered by the Rules of Summary Proceedings.

Complainant's Position

On March 31, 2014, complainant filed before the MCTC a Complaint 2 for Forcible Entry with urgent application for 72-Hour Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory/Mandatory Injunction. On April 23, 2014, or after almost a month, the application for the issuance of the TRO and the Writ for Injunction was scheduled for joint hearing. The hearings on the application were terminated on June 11, 2014.

On July 18, 2014, respondent issued an order granting the prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. On July 22, 2014, complainant filed its Extremely Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Police Assistance to effectively implement said order.

The opposing party in the complaint for forcible entry filed a petition for certiorari on July 24, 2014 with the Regional Trial Court of Aklan, Branch 8 (RTC). On July 25, 2014, complainant posted a cash bond in the amount of P2,000,000.00, in compliance with the order granting the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.

On July 30, 2014, Judge Nelson Bartolome of the RTC issued a 20-day TRO enjoining the MCTC from implementing its order, dated July 18, 2014. In compliance, respondent issued an order, dated August 22, 2014, suspending all proceedings in the case for forcible entry until further orders from the RTC. On October 10, 2014, respondent received a copy of the resolution of the RTC dismissing the petition for certiorari filed before it.

On November 26, 2014, respondent issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction in complainant's favor. The sheriff attempted to enforce it but was unable to do so because of the refusal of the opposing party in the forcible entry case. For such reason, complainant filed another motion for police assistance before the MCTC on December 11, 2014. On the same date, the opposing party in the forcible entry case moved for the dissolution of the writ of injunction. Both motions were heard on December 17, 2014, but were not immediately resolved.

Respondent's Position

In her Comment, 3 dated June 1, 2015, respondent admitted that there could have been delays in the issuance of the order in connection with the prayer for injunctive relief. She, however, insisted that the delays were not made to unduly prejudice complainant but were caused by the filing of numerous pleadings and motions by both parties. CAIHTE

Respondent noted that the complaint for forcible entry was set for hearing on the earliest possible date, April 23, 2014, considering that the hearings of the MCTC were only conducted every Wednesday at the Enhanced Justice on Wheels, Philippine Port Authority Compound, Caticlan, Aklan. She claimed that during the scheduled hearing, complainant's counsel sought for a resetting because the judicial affidavits of their witnesses had not been prepared.

Respondent argued that she was constrained not to further act on the matter because the RTC issued a TRO prohibiting her from proceeding with the case. She asserted that complainant was already in possession of the property in question because the writ of preliminary injunction was finally implemented on February 23, 2015 after the motion for police assistance was granted. Moreover, respondent averred that a decision in the forcible entry case was finally rendered on April 24, 2015 in favor of complainant.

Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation, 4 dated August 3, 2015, the OCA found the complaint of Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order against respondent meritorious.

Respondent acknowledged the delay in the resolution of the prayer for injunctive relief but explained that it was due to numerous pleadings and motions filed by both parties. The OCA, however, found the explanation untenable because respondent should have promptly scheduled it and taken immediate action on the urgency of the ex parte application for the 72-hour TRO, before acting on the 20-day extension of the TRO and on the propriety of the writ of preliminary injunction. It opined that that the primary objective of the 72-hour TRO was defeated when the application was acted upon only after almost a month. The OCA nevertheless, stated though that respondent could not be faulted in not acting on the proceedings because a TRO was issued by the RTC.

The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; that respondent be found guilty of the charge and fined in the mitigated amount of P5,000.00, in light of the unique circumstances surrounding the case and respondent's admission of her misgivings; and that respondent be warned that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely by the Court.

The Court's Ruling

The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA.

Respondent was administratively charged with Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order, in connection with complainant's application for TRO and/or preliminary injunction. Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense, which according to Section 11 of the said Rule, is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

In determining whether respondent is guilty of the said charge, a perusal of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court is in order. It reads:

Sec. 5. Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. — No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or persons sought to be enjoined. . . .

However, subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance, but shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. . . .

From the foregoing, it is clear that unlike a writ of preliminary injunction, a 72-hour TRO may be issued ex parte in cases of extreme urgency. A summary hearing is then to be conducted to determine whether the 72-hour TRO is to be extended to 20 days. During the 20-day period of the TRO, the court shall order the party sought to be enjoined to explain why the injunction should not be issued.

The OCA was correct in finding that respondent erred in treating the summary hearing for the urgent application of the TRO as the same hearing required in an application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. Complainant would be prejudiced if the dispossession continued. Hence, respondent should have acted on the application for the TRO ex parte instead of scheduling it for hearing only after more than a month from the filing of the complaint effectively negating the purpose of the rule on TRO in forcible cases.

Nonetheless, respondent cannot be faulted in not acting on the proceedings after a TRO was subsequently issued in a petition for certiorari was filed before the RTC. Respondent, however, is guilty of delay in not proceeding with the hearing on the application for injunctive relief in spite of the lapse of the TRO issued by the RTC. A TRO issued by the RTC automatically expires after the 20th day without need of any judicial declaration to that effect. 5

In determining the appropriate penalty for respondent's infraction, her admission of her transgressions and the fact that this is the first time that she has been charged administratively are taken into account. For this reason, the Court finds that the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Maribel de Guia-Cipriano, Presiding Judge of the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga-Malay, 6th Judicial Region, Kalibo, Aklan, GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order, the Court hereby imposes a FINE on her in the amount of P5,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. (Brion, J., on official leave; Perez, J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 2301 dated December 1, 2015) DETACa

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 1-14.

2. Id. at 21-42.

3. Id. at 126-129.

4. Id. at 130-134.

5. Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, 670 Phil. 320, 344 (2011).