Uy vs. Flores

A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when, in a single proceeding, he disregards the basic rule that a personnel transfer must first be appealed to the Civil Service Commission, issues a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against officials and acts outside his court’s territorial jurisdiction, and treats a pleading filed through a private courier as a void filing despite the settled rule that actual receipt by the court is the date of filing. Such patent errors, taken together with the fact that the jurisdictional defect was expressly raised, produce an inference of bad faith that cannot be overcome by a claim of good faith.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue Lilian B. Hefti issued a Revenue Travel Assignment Order relieving Mustapha M. Gandarosa as Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 16 in Cagayan de Oro City and reassigning him to the BIR Head Office in Quezon City. Secretary of Finance Margarito B. Teves approved the order. Gandarosa filed a Rule 65 petition before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, presided by Judge Flores, praying that the reassignment order be declared void and that its enforcement be enjoined. Judge Flores granted a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction. After a new Revenue Travel Assignment Order issued by the succeeding commissioner reiterated the reassignment, Gandarosa filed a petition for indirect contempt. Judge Flores issued a series of orders, including one impleading additional BIR officials and ordering the maintenance of the status quo in Gandarosa’s favor. The Court of Appeals subsequently annulled all seven orders, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the challenged action was a personnel matter falling under the exclusive appellate authority of the Civil Service Commission; that decision became final and executory.

• The Reassignment and the Underlying Petitions: Revenue Travel Assignment Order issued by Commissioner Hefti and approved by Secretary Teves reassigned Gandarosa from Cagayan de Oro to Quezon City. Gandarosa filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and/or prohibition with prayer for a temporary restraining order before RTC Branch 7, Tubod, Lanao del Norte, presided by respondent Judge Flores. The petition sought to void the reassignment and to enjoin its enforcement. After a new commissioner issued a second order reiterating the reassignment, Gandarosa filed a petition for indirect contempt against Secretary Teves and the new commissioner.

• Orders Issued by Judge Flores: Within a span of less than two months, Judge Flores issued seven orders: (1) a 72-hour temporary restraining order; (2) an order extending the temporary restraining order; (3) an order admitting Gandarosa’s documentary exhibits; (4) an order granting a writ of preliminary injunction; (5) an Omnibus Order treating the comment of the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, which was filed through LBC, as a mere scrap of paper; (6) an order requiring the officials to file their comment to the contempt petition; and (7) an Omnibus and Interim Order that impleaded Deputy Commissioner Nelson Aspe and OIC Alberto Olasiman as respondents in the contempt petition and directed the maintenance of the status quo, effectively retaining Gandarosa as Regional Director.

• CA Annulment: The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 02753-MIN, annulled all seven orders and directed Judge Flores to dismiss the Rule 65 and contempt petitions. The CA ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a personnel action cognizable by the Civil Service Commission. The CA decision attained finality and entry of judgment was made.

• Administrative Complaint: Complainants, all private individuals, charged Judge Flores with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, denial of due process, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. They alleged that the judge ignored the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, issued injunctive writs effective beyond his territorial jurisdiction, improperly rejected a pleading filed via private courier, denied the government officials due process, and displayed bias. Judge Flores defended himself by pointing to the dismissal of an earlier, purportedly similar complaint and claimed he acted in good faith.

• Prior Exoneration: Respondent Judge Flores invoked the dismissal of an earlier administrative complaint (A.M. No. 09-1-46-RTC) filed by the Coalition of Chambers of Commerce and Industry Associations, Northern Mindanao, asserting that the present charges were substantially similar and therefore barred.

• Good Faith: He claimed that even if he erred in taking cognizance of Gandarosa’s cases, he did so in good faith and without malice, which should exonerate him from administrative liability.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Whether Judge Flores committed gross ignorance of the law by (a) assuming jurisdiction over the Rule 65 petition despite the employee’s failure to exhaust the administrative remedy of appeal to the Civil Service Commission; (b) issuing a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against officials and acts outside his court’s territorial jurisdiction; and (c) treating a comment filed through LBC as a mere scrap of paper.

• Manifest Partiality: Whether Judge Flores displayed manifest partiality by granting injunctive relief in favor of Gandarosa.

• Denial of Due Process: Whether the Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue were denied due process when their comment was treated as a scrap of paper, and whether Aspe and Olasiman were condemned without a hearing.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: Whether Judge Flores’s acts constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: The judge was found liable for gross ignorance of the law on three independent, cumulative grounds. First, Gandarosa’s Rule 65 petition assailed a personnel transfer, an action that must first be appealed to the Civil Service Commission pursuant to Section 26(3), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. Long-standing jurisprudence—Vinzons-Chato v. Natividad and Rualo v. Pitargue—unequivocally mandates dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The judge’s failure to apply this basic rule, despite the Office of the Solicitor General having raised the jurisdictional defect, constituted a gross and patent error that produced an inference of bad faith. Second, even assuming arguable jurisdiction, Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court confines the petition to the Regional Trial Court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the area where the challenged acts occurred. The writs issued by Judge Flores enjoined officials stationed in Metro Manila and affected acts in Cagayan de Oro, both outside the 12th Judicial Region. This was held to be akin to the territorial overreach condemned in Republic v. Judge Caguioa. Third, the omnibus order treated the officials’ comment filed through LBC as a mere scrap of paper, ignoring the established rule that delivery to a private letter-forwarding agency is not the date of filing; actual receipt by the court controls. The error was gross because the rule is settled and basic. Under Rule 140, Sections 8(9) and 11(A) of the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge punishable by a fine exceeding ₱20,000 but not exceeding ₱40,000, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three months but not exceeding six months, or dismissal.

• Manifest Partiality: The charge was dismissed. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed from the mere issuance of an injunctive order. Clear and convincing evidence, including extrinsic evidence beyond the decision itself, is required; complainants presented none.

• Denial of Due Process: The charge was dismissed. What due process safeguards is the opportunity to be heard, not prior notice in the abstract. The Secretary of Finance and the Commissioner were represented by the Office of the Solicitor General during the November 21, 2008 hearing and were directed to comment on the contempt petition. Aspe and Olasiman were notified of the hearing for the motion to implead them. No denial of the opportunity to be heard was established.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service: The charge was dismissed. This species of misconduct refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the people’s faith in the Judiciary, such as misrepresentation or unauthorized transactions as illustrated in Consolacion v. Gambito. Complainants failed to allege any comparable specific conduct on the part of Judge Flores.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law Defined — A judge commits gross ignorance of the law when an error is gross or patent, deliberate or malicious, or when the judge ignores, contradicts, or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. A claim of good faith does not excuse such incompetence. When an error is so gross and patent, it produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable. The rules on jurisdiction are basic, and judges are expected to know them by heart.

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies in Personnel Transfers — Under Section 26(3), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987, an employee who believes there is no justification for a transfer shall appeal his case to the Civil Service Commission. A party who fails to exhaust this administrative remedy cannot resort to a petition for certiorari before the regular courts; the action must be dismissed.

• Territorial Reach of Injunctive Writs under Rule 65 — A Regional Trial Court acting on a Rule 65 petition may issue a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction only within the territorial area of the judicial region to which it belongs, as defined by the Supreme Court. It cannot enjoin acts or officials located outside that territorial jurisdiction.

• Filing Through Private Courier — The date of delivery of a pleading to a private letter-forwarding agency (such as LBC) is not considered the date of filing. The date of actual receipt by the court is the date of filing. A pleading filed in such a manner cannot be treated as a mere scrap of paper; it is deemed filed on the date the court receives it.

• Proof of Bias and Partiality — Charges of bias and partiality against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Extrinsic evidence is required; the decision itself is insufficient.

• Due Process as Opportunity to be Heard — The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard; it is not violated by the absence of previous notice where the party has been given a fair chance to present its side. The fact that a pleading is erroneously disregarded does not establish a denial of due process when the party was represented and participated in the hearing.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — This refers to acts or omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish, or tend to diminish, the people’s faith in the Judiciary. There must be specific conduct alleged and proved that tarnishes the image and integrity of the public office.

• “When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the law.”

• “There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious. It may also be committed when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.”

• “When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.”

• “[T]he established rule is that the date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be considered as the date of filing thereof in court, and that in such cases, the date of actual receipt by the court, and not the date of delivery to the private carrier, is deemed the date of filing of that pleading.”

• Republic v. Judge Caguioa, 608 Phil. 577 (2009) — Followed. The Court relied on this precedent to hold that issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court evidences gross ignorance of the law.

• Vinzons-Chato v. Hon. Natividad, 314 Phil. 824 (1995) — Followed. Established that any employee questioning the validity of a transfer must appeal to the Civil Service Commission, and that the trial court should dismiss the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

• Rualo v. Pitargue, 490 Phil. 28 (2005) — Followed. Reiterated the rule that an employee assailing a transfer must bring the case to the Civil Service Commission and that failure to do so warrants dismissal by the trial court.

• Gacad v. Clapis, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257, July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 534 — Cited for the principle that a gross and patent error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance.

• Philippine National Bank v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 172458, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 424 and Charter Chemical and Coating Corp. v. Tan, 606 Phil. 75 (2009) — Cited for the rule that the date of filing for pleadings sent through a private carrier is the date of actual receipt by the court.

• Elefant v. Judge Inting, 502 Phil. 26 (2005) — Cited for the requirement that bias and partiality must be proved by extrinsic evidence.

• Consolacion v. Gambito, A.M. Nos. P-06-2186 & P-12-3026, July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 452 — Distinguished. Provided the definition of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which complainants failed to satisfy.

• Section 26(3), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987 — Mandates that an employee who believes a transfer has no justification shall appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Applied to require dismissal of Gandarosa’s Rule 65 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

• Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for certiorari be filed in a Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. Applied to hold that the injunctive writs issued beyond the 12th Judicial Region were void.

• Sections 8(9) and 11(A), Rule 140, Rules of Court — Classify gross ignorance of the law as a serious charge and prescribe the range of penalties. Applied as the basis for the suspension imposed.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes concurred.