April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 156358 : April 18, 2012]
ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO, PETITIONER v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
"G.R. No. 156358 - ANGELINA PAHILA-GARRIDO, Petitioner v. ELIZA M. TORTOGO, ET AL., Respondents.
Through our decision promulgated on August 17, 2011, we required Presiding Judge Gorgonio J. Yba�ez of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, in Bacolod City, as follows:
WHEREFORE, xxx.
xxx
Presiding Judge Gorgonio J. Yba�ez of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 48, in Bacolod City is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten days from notice why he should not be administratively sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law and procedure for his manifest disregard of the prohibition under the Rules of Court against unwarranted restraining orders and writs of injunction, and for issuing a temporary restraining order effective until furthers of the court.
xxx
SO ORDERED.
On December 6, 2011, the Court received the written compliance filed by Judge Yba�ez, pertinently stating:
1. That I, the undersigned, Judge Gorgonio J. Yba�ez, was compulsorily retired from the service as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 48, Bacolod City, last September 09, 2011;
2. That on my retirement I was happy with the thought that my more than 38 years of service in the government � the last 27 years of which as Judge, starting in 1983 as Judge of 2nd MCTC of Victorias- Manapia, Negros Occidental, then as MTCC Judge of Bacolod City, and subsequently as RTC Judge of Branch 48, Bacolod City � was unsullied, until that day when 1 received a copy of the said Decision, and at a time after I have already "graduated" from the service. I have always endeavored to do my job as best I could and be a good judge always in all my years in the judiciary, but as it turned out now, my best was not enough;
3. That as per the office of the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 48, Bacolod City, the entire record of Civil Case No. 01-11522 (from which this G.R. No. 156358 arose) had been forwarded to, and until now is still with, the Honorable Supreme Court, so that this Compliance is based only on what I can recall on what said Civil Case No. 01-11522 is all about;
4. That as far as I can recall, my issuance of the assailed TRO and Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction (WPPI) "effective until further orders of the court" was not, and never meant to usurp the power/function pertaining only to the Honorable Supreme Court, but due to, or the result only of, I now realized, my inappropriate use of the said words/phrase which to my mind then was to refer to a situation wherein, on the proper showing by the party concerned of a proper ground for its lifting, the TRO may/could be lifted by the issuing court anytime even within its 20-day life, and that, anyway, it could just die a natural death after the lapse of its 20-day life span as provided for by the Rules of Court, regardless of the terminology used in the issued TRO. And, along the same vein, the same is true to my mind then, with respect to the assailed WPPI, that is, at anytime after its issuance, it may/could also be lifted if a ground for its lifting is properly shown to the court justifying its lifting. It would have been better and most appropriate if I should have used the words/phrase "unless sooner lifted", rather than "until further orders of the court". The inappropriate use was not meant to usurp as I did not, and never even, have the slightest intention to usurp at any time the power vested only in the Honorable Supreme Court, and my use thereof was most likely due to my misappreciation and misjudgment of attendant facts due to the inexperience yet on my part with respect to injunction being, then, a new RTC judge which, to my recollection, with no prior experience yet in the issuance of prohibitory injunctive order when I issued then the assailed WPPI;
5. That if only a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) was filed by the petitioner in that Civil Case No. 01-11522 from the assailed WPPI, dated November 12, 2002, I feel and so believe that I may, and could, have then realized my misappreciation and/or misjudgments of facts and thereby, in all likelihood, could have then reconsidered and set aside the assailed Order. But, of course, it really is by now long water under the bridge (sic) for, as already found by the Honorable Supreme Court, the petitioner herein was justified in going direct to it without first filing an MR;
6. That I feel so sad just to think that this unpleasant page in my career as a judge that came out now after I am already retired, happened and was sealed off some 9 or 10 years ago yet, I never thought; and, finally,
7. THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN, no contest. With all candor and sincerity may I respectfully say, YOUR HONORS, I AM SO SORRY. I now leave my fate to You, begging and praying for Your understanding, compassion and mercy.[1]
The Court considers the explanations of Judge Yba�ez persuasive enough. They show that his making of the injunctive relief effective "until further orders of the court" resulted from his choice of inappropriate words, not from malice; that he really intended to make the relief effective "unless sooner lifted" based on his anticipation that the party enjoined would seek its lifting or the reconsideration of its issuance upon a clear showing of the relief�s impropriety; that he did not intend that the injunctive relief would continue even beyond the lapse of the 20-day life span of the temporary restraining order (TRO) as set in the Rules of Court whereby the TRO "[w]ould just die a natural death;" that his "misappreciation and misjudgment of attendant facts due to the inexperience yet on my part with respect to injunction being, then, a new RTC judge which, to my recollection, with no prior experience yet in the issuance of prohibitory injunctive order when I issued then the assailed WPPI" caused his mistake; and that he did not desire to thereby usurp the authority to issue a TRO with an indefinite life span that only the Supreme Court possessed.
Judge Ybanez asserts that his stint in the Judiciary was otherwise unsullied; and that he expresses his contrition, and leaves his fate to the Court, begging for its understanding, compassion and mercy.
The Court finds that Judge Yba�ez could only be human and be prone to err in acting upon matters submitted for his consideration and resolution. In the absence of any credible indication that he acted in bad faith, to hold him strictly responsible for every error he might commit would not square well with our sense of fairness. Moreover, the circumstances that he described in his written explanations reasonably demonstrated that his issuance of the TRO to be effective "until further orders of the court" was a mere honest mistake, not a deliberate one, or was otherwise inadvertent.cralaw
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ACCEPTS the explanations of Judge Yba�ez; and ABSOLVES him of any liability for issuing the temporary restraining order effective "until further orders of the court."
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] The bold emphasis is supplied.
