Dr. Raul M. Sunico, Complainant, vs. Judge Pedro Gutierrez, Respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457
February 21, 2017
FACTS:
In a complaint dated July 10, 2014, Dr. Sunico, in his capacity as the President of the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), alleged that the latter entered into a five (5)-year lease contract on a property owned by CCP with Felix Espiritu (Espiritu), covering the period of June 16, 2007 until June 15, 2012. Thereafter, Espiritu operated his Yakitori Dori Bar and Grill Restaurant on the leased property.
On April 18, 2012, the CCP management notified Espiritu that it will no longer renew the lease contract after its termination on June 15, 2012 and demanded that Espiritu settle his outstanding obligation. The latter, however, expressed his interest to renew the lease contract for another five (5) years, but CCP rejected the offer. After the expiration of the contract, CCP sent a notice of disconnection of electricity and water supply to Espiritu.
On June 27, 2012, Espiritu filed a Petition for Specific Performance to fix the lease period, injunction and damages before the sala of respondent Judge Gutierrez, who was then on leave.Vice-Executive Judge Wilhelmina J. Wagan denied the application for a 72-hour TRO. On July 3, 2012, pairing Judge Rowena Nieves Tan also denied the application for issuance of a 20-day TRO for lack of merit. Meanwhile, CCP disconnected the electric and water supplies in the subject premises.Espiritu filed an Ex Parte Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration and Status Quo Ante Order which was set for hearing on July 27, 2012. Dr. Sunico claimed that CCP received the copy of the Manifestation/Motion only on August 2, 2012 and alleged that despite the violation of the three (3)-day notice rule, respondent Judge Gutierrez issued an Order dated July 27, 2012 directing CCP to file its comment/opposition within (5) days from notice.CCP received the Order on August 22, 2012 and had until August 28, 2012 to file its comment (August 27, 2012 was a non-working holiday). Due to time constraints, CCP asked for extension of time, or until September 7, 2012, to file its comment. However, on August 28, 2012, respondent judge immediately issued an Order resolving the motion in favor of Espiritu.
CCP moved for reconsideration of the Order dated August 28, 2012 but was denied. Dr. Sunico alleged that respondent judge was partial and that he also violated CCP's right to procedural due process when he resolved Espiritu's motion without awaiting for CCP's comment/opposition.
After hearing, respondent judge issued an Order dated September 25, 2012 granting Espiritu's motion for the issuance of preliminary injunction. On October 10, 2012, Dr. Sunico filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order and for the Dissolution of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. To expedite the proceedings, CCP filed a Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of its Motion for Reconsideration dated December 13, 2012. Dr. Sunico claimed that respondent judge failed to act on the motion despite the lapse of more than three (3) months from the time of the filing to resolve.On March 6, 2013, CCP filed another Reiterative Motion for Speedy Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration.
Finally, after more than 5 months, respondent judge denied Dr. Sunico's motion for reconsideration in an Order dated April 1, 2013. The said order is a mere one-page document with three (3) short paragraphs which failed to explain how respondent judge arrived at said order. On May 17, 2013, Dr. Sunico sought respondent judge's inhibition. During the hearing, respondent judge stated that Dr. Sunico's motion was improper, since certiorari was the better remedy. He also asked Dr. Sunico if it was possible to give Espiritu an extension of the lease contract. Meanwhile, on June 27, 2013, Dr. Sunico filed a Petition for Certiorari of the Orders.
After four (4) months from the filing of the motion for inhibition, respondent judge issued an Order stating that he shall inhibit from the case provided that the petition for certiorari before the CA is granted and that he is found to have gravely abused his discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.
The CA found respondent judge Gutierrez gravely abused his discretion in issuing the Orders dated September 25, 2012 and April 1, 2013. The appellate court stated that Espiritu was not entitled to a writ of preliminary injunction since there was no showing that he had a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected.
Consequently, Dr. Sunico reiterated its motion for respondent judge's inhibition. Respondent judge deferred his inhibition until the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Espiritu before the CA. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. However, notwithstanding the denial by the CA of Espiritu's motion for reconsideration, respondent judge refused to recuse himself from the case. Espiritu filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the SC. Meanwhile, CCP fenced certain areas of the subject property within its perimeter but excluded the subject leased premises. Espiritu misinterpreted CCP's action as violative of the status quo ante issued by respondent judge on August 28, 2012. Hence, Espiritu filed an Ex Parte Manifestation with Motion for Issuance of Show Cause Order against CCP.
On May 9, 2014, Espiritu filed a Supplemental Motion for Removal of Fence, which was set for hearing on May 13, 2014. Dr. Sunico filed a reiterative Ex-Parte Motion for Immediate Inhibition of respondent judge. During the hearing, the Motion for Issuance of Show Cause Order and the Supplemental Motion filed by Espiritu were simultaneously heard. Complainant Dr. Sunico assailed the actions of respondent judge in entertaining Espiritu's motions. Furthermore, respondent judge urged the parties to forge a compromise to remove the fence. Dr. Sunico filed a Consolidated Opposition to the Motions of Espiritu with Fourth Reiteration of its motion for respondent judge's inhibition.
On June 5, 2014, CCP filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Fifth Reiterative Motion for Inhibition. Complainant Dr. Sunico insisted that respondent judge has been partial from the very start. He ordered the removal of the fence which was outside the subject leased premises and even inspected the property without CCP's knowledge or presence, and continued to hear the case apparently to accommodate and protect Espiritu.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) resolved to require respondent judge to file his comment relative to the I complaint filed against him. Acting on the fifth reiterative prayer for his inhibition and motion for reconsideration, respondent judge resolved to grant the motion for inhibition.
Respondent judge categorically denied the allegations against him. He asserted that the assailed writ and orders were issued in the exercise of his judicial function, based on his appreciation of the facts, and within the bounds of the law and established jurisprudence. He opined that he cannot be subjected to civil, criminal or administrative liability for any official acts he did no matter how erroneous they are as long as he acted in good faith. He explained that considering the urgency of the matter, he was then duty-bound to immediately rule on the matter which was why he granted the injunction. He opted not to discuss the assailed orders considering that these are the subject of certiorari proceedings before the CA and the SC. Respondent judge further averred that complainant filed the instant administrative complaint to coerce him to inhibit from further trying the case, which he had already granted. Meanwhile, in separate cases, respondent judge was found guilty of simple misconduct and was fined Php20,000.00. In another administrative case, respondent judge was reprimanded for poor ethical judgment and for failure to uphold the dignity of the court.
In a Memorandum dated January 20, 2016, the OCA found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law, undue delay and manifest bias and partiality and recommended that he be fined in the amount of ₱40,000.00 and be sternly warned. It likewise recommended that the complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative complaint against respondent judge. Meanwhile, on December 9, 2016, respondent judge Gutierrez compulsorily retired.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, undue delay in rendering an order, and bias and partiality;
HELD:
Yes, the Supreme Court concur with the findings of the OCA, except as to the imposable penalty. Respondent judge manifested ignorance as to the propriety or impropriety of issuing a writ of preliminary injunction. The evidence presented in the application for preliminary injunction do not show the presence of the requisites for Espiritu's entitlement to a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Indeed, the expired lease contract itself would have easily shown that Espiritu was not entitled to the writ. In fact, the initial attempts by Espiritu to get an injunction against CCP were denied. It should be pointed out also that Espiritu filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA rejected anew. Thus, without basis in fact and in law, respondent judge's issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction shows manifest gross ignorance of the law.
As to the charge of undue delay in rendering a decision or order, records show that on October 12, 2012, CCP filed a motion for reconsideration and for the dissolution of the writ of preliminary injunction. On the same date, respondent judge gave Espiritu the opportunity to file comment/opposition, and CCP to file a reply from receipt of Espiritu's comment/opposition, which upon submission was deemed submitted for resolution. On December 13, 2012, Espiritu filed his Comment, while on November 26, 2013, CCP filed its Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Motion for Resolution. In the same manifestation, CCP informed the trial court that it would no longer file a reply, and moved for the early resolution of its motion for reconsideration. Notwithstanding that the matter had already been submitted for resolution upon submission of CCP's manifestation/motion, respondent judge continued with the proceedings by setting the case for preliminary and pre-trial conference on April 4, 2013. On March 6, 2013, CCP filed anew a reiterative urgent motion for speedy resolution. Respondent judge Gutierrez resolved the motion only on April 1, 2013. Respondent judge did not provide any reason for his delay in resolving the said motion.
With regard to bias and partiality, the Court finds equally disturbing is respondent judge's stubbornness to cling to the subject case for unknown reason. Indeed, the decision of the appellate court implies that it should not have been difficult for respondent judge to determine whether Espiritu was entitled to an injunctive writ. Respondent judge should have been guided by this ruling and should have refrained in further issuing orders which tend to favor Espiritu without factual or legal basis. However, instead of rectifying his errors or inhibiting from the case at once, respondent judge appeared to be unperturbed and insisted in hearing the case. Hence, respondent was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, undue delay in rendering an order, bias and partiality, and was ordered to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00 to be deducted to his retirement benefits.
No comments:
Post a Comment