ORTEGA, JR. vs. JUDGE DACARA

Santiago D. Ortega, Jr. vs. Judge Rogelio LL. Dacara
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423
January 11, 2017


FACTS:

                This is a case where a complaint was charged to Judge Dacara for gross ignorance of the law and gross inexcusable negligence.
                The petitioner/complainant, President of the Siramag Fishing Corporation (SFC), filed a case against the Regional Director and Chief of Fisheries Resource Management of BFAR-RO-V. The case was raffled to RTC-Branch 37, Iriga City, Camarines Sur, presided by respondent judge.
                After the hearing, the respondent judge denied the complainant’s application for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction due to lack of clear and inestimable right to be protected, prohibition to the court to issue such writ based on PD 605 and lack of territorial jurisdiction.
                The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in their report and recommendation found the respondent judge favorable as regards to his decision denying to issue the writ.  However, with regards to territorial jurisdiction, OCA found the respondent berief of merit.


ISSUE:

                Whether or not  the respondent judge erred in his decision as regards the complainant’s application for the issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.


RULING:

                The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent judge.  The respondent was correct in his decision not to issue the writ since he was prohibited as expressed under Sec. 1 of PD 605.  Also, the respondent judge correctly observed that the complainant failed to show that there is a clear and inescapable right to be protected to justify the issuance.

                With regard to territorial jurisdiction, the respondent judge erred since the office concerned was located in Pili Camarines Sur which was within the jurisdiction of RTC – Branch 37 of Iriga City.  However, considering the circumstances of the case and the lack of malice and bad faith on the part of the respondent, the court found the respondent judge not liable.  The case was dismissed. 

No comments:

Post a Comment