77 Sampiano V. Indar.docx

MAYOR HADJI AMER R. SAMPIANO vs. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR,



pending resolution of the said petition, the PNB-Marawi to hold or defer the release of the IRA for the Municipality of Balabagan unless ordered otherwise by the court

December 21, 2009 | LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

FACTS: 



Sampiano clarified with respondent Judge if the Order was in the nature of a TRO. Respondent Judge replied that it was not. His counsel then vigorously prodded respondent Judge to immediately lift the said Order so as not to deprive the officials and employees of the Municipality of Balabagan from receiving their hard earned salaries, but respondent Judge did not heed the said request.



Sampiano claimed that the said Order was issued in violation of Section 286 of the Local Government Code, which provides for the automatic release of the share of the local government unit from the national government. Sampiano prayed that respondent Judge be dismissed from

Prior to the filing of the present administrative case, complainant Sampiano filed before the COMELEC a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction/TRO against his rival mayoralty candidate, his uncle

Ogka, and the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. 

Comelec issued the following: o Order authorizing the vice-mayor to temporarily assume the duties and responsibilities as mayor due to the double proclamation of Sampiano and Ogka for the position of mayor o

Order recalling the Order authorizing the assumption of the vice-mayor as the mayor, and instead maintaining the status quo prevailing at the time of the issuance of the said Order

o

Sampiano was ordered to act, perform and discharge the duties, functions and responsibilities as mayor to prevent paralysis to public service pending determination and final resolution of the controversy involving the mayorship of the Municipality of Balabagan



On the same day, respondent Judge issued an Order which directed,



 

Aggrieved, Ogka filed an Urgent MR and informed in writing the Chief Legal Counsel of PNB and asked him not to release the IRA (Internal

judicial service for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, manifest partiality and serious acts of impropriety. Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. required respondent Judge to file his comment and to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for violation of his professional responsibility as a lawyer. Respondent Judge denied the charges against him and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint The OCA filed with the Court an Administrative Matter for Agenda with the recommendation that respondent judge be found guilty of ignorance of the law for violating Section 5 of Rule 58, Revised Rules on Civil Procedure and that he be imposed a penalty of fine of P10,000.00

Revenue Allotment which is the share of the local government unit in national internal revenue taxes) for the Municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur until the

controversy involving the mayorship of the said municipality now pending with the Comelec shall have been finally resolved.

ISSUE: WON Judge Cader P. Indar should be held administratively liable

o







He cited Section 2, Rule 19 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure which provides that a motion for reconsideration, if not pro-forma, suspends the execution or implementation of the decision, resolution, order or ruling. However, on the basis of the Comelec Order, the counsel directed PNB-Marawi to release the July, August, and September 2004 IRA for the Municipality of Balabagan, Lanao del Sur to Sampiano and Macabato (the Municipal Treasurer). PNB-Marawi then released on September 14, 2004 the pending IRA for the months of July to September 2004.

To temporarily suspend the release of the October 2004 IRA while his Urgent MR is pending resolution, Ogka filed a special civil action for Prohibition and Injunction with TRO and Preliminary Injunction with the RTC

RULING: YES 



The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA that the Order is essentially a preliminary injunction order, and that the respondent Judge failed to comply with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. A cursory reading of the said Order reveals that it was in effect a TRO or preliminary injunction order. The Order directed PNB to hold or defer the release of the IRA to Sampiano and Macabato while the petition is pending resolution of the trial court and unless ordered otherwise by the court. This Order was merely consistent with the relief prayed for in respondents petition for prohibition and injunction. o 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 72 hours from issuance but he shall immediately comply with







provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. o Thereafter, within the aforesaid 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. o In no case shall the total period of the effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed 20 days, including the original 72 hours provided therein. ITC: respondent Judge issued the October 11, 2004 Order on the very same day it was filed, and without any hearing and prior notice to herein complainants. As discussed above, respondent was allowed by the Rules to issue ex parte a TRO of limited effectivity and, in that time, conduct a hearing to determine the propriety of extending the TRO or issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent conducted the hearing of the petition on October 14, 2004 or on the third day of the issuance of a TRO ex parte. The counsels for Ogka and Sampiano, respectively argued in their clients behalf. Sampiano and Macabato were also present. During the said hearing, Atty. Mortaba manifested that his clients would either file an answer or a motion to dismiss the petition, while Atty. Macabantog opted to file a rejoinder after the latter has submitted their answer or motion to dismiss. On October 19, 2004, Sampiano and Macabato filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition, wherein, they prayed, among others, for the recall or lifting of the October 11, 2004 Order. Respondent Judge pointed out that he was able to make an initial action on the Motion to Dismiss the petition by requiring Ogka to comment on the said motion before turning the case to the incoming Acting Presiding Judge, Judge Rosad B. Balindong, on October 22, 2004. The October 11, 2004 Order was lifted in an Order dated October 27, 2004 issued by the latter.



Hence, the TRO issued ex parte was effective for 11 days from October 11, 2004 until October 22, 2004 in violation of the Rules. Only a TRO issued after a summary hearing can last for a period of twenty days.



It is worthy to note that the said October 11, 2004 Order was subsequently lifted by the succeeding judge on the ground that the requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were not present. However, Sampiano adduced no evidence to prove that the issuance of the October 11, 2004 Order was motivated by bad faith. o Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. o It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes. Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.





In issuing the assailed Order, respondent Judge was not at all motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred and some other motive;

rather, he took into account the circumstances obtaining between the parties as can be gleaned from his Comment, and we quote: This should be considered an exercise of judicial functions and judicial prerogatives in the most cautious manner taking into account the factual and serious circumstances obtaining between petitioner Ogka and his Uncle Mayor Sampiano whose family were already at war with each other.

Further, respondent judge was cautious in his court actions in this petition in order to avert the already growing tension between the warring families aroused anew by the result of the May 10, 2004 elections. 



Since there is no showing that respondent Judge was motivated by bad faith or ill motives in rendering the assailed Order, and this is his first offense, we sustain the penalty recommended by the OCA to be imposed on respondent Judge for violating Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. WHEREFORE, the penalty of a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) is hereby imposed on respondent Judge for the above-mentioned violation of the Rules of Court.

NOTE: There is no discussion by the Court on the topic of “Shares of Local Government Units in the Proceeds of National Taxes.” They just tackled the administrative liability of the judge.