In Bailinang P. Marohombsar v. Judge Santos B. Adiong, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed allegations of gross ignorance of law, abuse of discretion, and conduct unbecoming a judge against Judge Santos B. Adiong. The Court ultimately dismissed the complaint, affirming the judge’s actions and emphasizing the importance of good faith and the presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings. This decision clarifies the standards for evaluating claims of judicial misconduct, particularly concerning the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TROs) and preliminary injunctions.

Navigating the Legal Thicket: Was Justice Derailed by Expedited Rulings?

The case arose from a dispute over an appointment within the Department of Social Welfare and Development – Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (DSWD-ARMM). Bailinang P. Marohombsar, the complainant, alleged that Judge Adiong improperly issued a TRO and preliminary injunction in favor of Yasmira Pangadapun, who questioned Marohombsar’s appointment. Marohombsar claimed that Judge Adiong issued the TRO without a proper hearing, falsified court records, and demonstrated bias. These claims led to an investigation by the Court of Appeals, which ultimately recommended that Judge Adiong be absolved of all charges.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ recommendation. It highlighted that a **TRO** is typically granted without notice to the opposing party as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until a temporary injunction’s propriety can be determined. Citing Rule 58, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court emphasized the conditions under which a judge could issue a TRO ex parte, especially when “great or irreparable injury” could occur before a hearing. This section of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:

Preliminary injunction not granted without notice; exception. – No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order.

However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, 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 seventy-two (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. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (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. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours provided therein.

The Court found no sufficient evidence to support the claim that Judge Adiong had falsified court records, noting that the alleged inconsistencies in pagination were reasonably explained by the judge’s procedural workflow. Moreover, the Court found that the complainant had the opportunity to seek reconsideration of the injunction order, mitigating any potential due process violations. In short, there was no denial of due process because the preliminary injunction was open for reconsideration.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that judicial acts, even if erroneous, do not warrant disciplinary action unless they are motivated by bad faith or malice. In the case of Equatorial Realty vs. Anunciacion, Jr., the Supreme Court emphasized that judges are presumed to act regularly and impartially. Thus, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, the Court should defer to the presumption of good faith. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to protecting judicial independence and impartiality.

This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the balance between ensuring judicial accountability and preserving judicial independence. Charges of bias and procedural errors must be supported by substantial evidence, and the courts will generally presume that judges act in good faith when performing their duties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Adiong committed gross ignorance of the law, abuse of discretion, and conduct unbecoming a judge in issuing a TRO and preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Judge Adiong, emphasizing that the actions were proper under the circumstances.
What is a temporary restraining order (TRO)?	A TRO is a court order that temporarily restrains a party from taking a certain action. It is typically issued ex parte (without notice to the other party) and is intended to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held.
Under what circumstances can a judge issue a TRO without notice?	A judge can issue a TRO without notice if it appears from affidavits or a verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before a hearing can be held. The Rules of Civil Procedure allows TRO in extreme urgency.
What is the presumption of good faith in judicial actions?	The presumption of good faith means that courts assume judges act honestly and impartially when performing their duties. This presumption can only be overturned with substantial evidence of bad faith or malice.
What is the effect of inconsistent pagination in court records?	Inconsistent pagination alone is generally not sufficient to prove tampering of court records. A reasonable explanation for the inconsistency is often enough to dispel suspicions of misconduct.
What does it mean to be denied due process?	A denial of due process means that a party was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and present evidence in their defense. This can include insufficient notice of a hearing or a lack of opportunity to challenge a court’s decision.
Can a judge be disciplined for making an error in judgment?	Not necessarily. A judge is typically not subject to disciplinary action for errors in judgment unless the actions are motivated by bad faith, malice, or a corrupt motive.
How does this case affect future complaints against judges?	This case reinforces the high bar for proving judicial misconduct and highlights the importance of demonstrating bad faith or malice rather than mere errors in judgment. It makes people understand the importance of TRO’s.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Marohombsar v. Adiong underscores the importance of judicial independence and the need for clear evidence to support allegations of judicial misconduct. It reinforces the principle that judges are presumed to act in good faith and that mere errors in judgment do not warrant disciplinary action unless bad faith or malice can be proven. It also emphasizes that not all petitions for preliminary injunction need undergo a trial-type hearing, it being doctrinal that a formal or trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: BAILINANG P. MAROHOMBSAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, RESPONDENT., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1674, January 22, 2004