CASE 2016-0051: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA VS. JUDGE ROLANDO MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY (A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2369, [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 12-3907-RTJ])
HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. JOSE ROBERTO F. PO VS. JUDGE ROLANDO MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 167, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY (A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2372 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3736-RTJ])
(26 JULY 2016, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT: GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: DOJ AND HDMF VS. JUDGE MISLANG)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court finds Judge Rolando G. Mislang, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 167, GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law in A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 and ORDERS his DISMISSAL from the service with FORFEITURE of retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
DELFIN LEE FACED 2 DOJ CASES. HE FILED A PETITION FOR INJUNCTION (WITH APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OR TRO) AGAINST THE DOJ, WHICH WAS RAFFLED TO THE SALA OF JUDGE MISLANG. LEE SOUGHT TO SUSPEND THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION BEING CONDUCTED BY THE DOJ IN THE 2ND DOJ CASE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY, TO LIKEWISE PREVENT THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN THE 1ST DOJ CASE. THE PARTIES, WITH THE PERMISSION OF JUDGE MISLANG, THEN AGREED TO SUBMIT FOR RESOLUTION THE PETITION FOR INJUNCTION UPON SUBMISSION OF THEIR RESPECTIVE MEMORANDA WITHIN FIFTEEN ( 15) DAYS. HOWEVER AFTER LEE HAD SUBMITTED HIS MEMORANDUM, THE FOLLOWING DAY HE FILED AN UNVERIFIED URGENT MOTION FOR THE EX-PARTE RESOLUTION OF HIS APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TRO. WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE DOJ’S MEMORANDUM, JUDGE MISLANG ISSUED ORDERS DATED AUGUST 16, 2011 AND AUGUST 26, 2011, GRANTING LEE’S PETITION. WAS THE ACTION OF JUDGE MISLANG PROPER?
HE VIOLATED DOJ’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND TO DUE PROCESS.
WHAT OTHER QUESTIONABLE EVENTS/ACTS ATTENDED THE CASE?
JUDGE MISLANG NEVER CONDUCTED A HEARING ON EITHER THE APPLICATION FOR TRO OR ON THE MOTION FOR RESOLUTION OF THE TRO.
ALTHOUGH THE APPLICATION FOR TRO WAS CONTAINED IN A VERIFIED PETITION, THE DOJ WAS NOT PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION OR THE URGENT MOTION FOR HEARING.
DOJ WAS NOT LIKEWISE SERVED WITH ANY NOTICE OF HEARING. AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF PROOF OF SERVICE, JUDGE MISLANG STILL PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPLICATION FOR TRO AGAINST THE 1ST DOJ CASE DURING THE HEARING ON THE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE 2ND DOJ CASE.
JUDGE MISLANG RULED THERE WAS A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST DOJ CASE. WAS HIS RULING CORRECT?
NO.
BECAUSE THE CRIMINAL ACTION WAS FILED AHEAD OF THE CIVIL ACTION WHICH LEE USED AS BASIS FOR HIS MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION.
THE RULE ON PREJUDICIAL QUESTION IS: THE CIVIL ACTION MUST BE INSTITUTED PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION.
WHAT IS GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?
IT IS THE DISREGARD OF BASIC RULES AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE.
IS EVERY JUDICIAL ERROR BESPEAKS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?
NO, IF COMMITTED IN GOOD FAITH AND WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF TOLERABLE MISJUDGMENT.
WHEN IS THERE GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?
WHERE THE LAW IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THE FACTS SO EVIDENT, FAILURE TO KNOW IT OR TO ACT AS IF ONE DOES NOT KNOW IT CONSTITUTES GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.
WHAT IS THE PRESUMPTION ON THE JUDGE’S PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS?
HE IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ACTED WITH REGULARITY AND GOOD FAITH?
WHEN IS THIS PRESUMPTION SET ASIDE?
WHEN HE COMMITS A BLATANT DISREGARD OF THE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE, AS WELL AS SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS ENJOINING THEIR STRICT COMPLIANCE.
WHEN HE WAS MOVED BY BAD FAITH, DISHONESTY, HATRED, OR SOME OTHER LIKE MOTIVE.
WHY ARE JUDGES EXPECTED TO KNOW THE LAW?
JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO EXHIBIT MORE THAN JUST CURSORY ACQUAINTANCE WITH STATUTES AND PROCEDURAL LAWS.
THUS, UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE RULES IS A SIGN OF INCOMPETENCE. BASIC RULES MUST BE AT THE PALM OF HIS HAND.
WHEN A JUDGE DISPLAYS UTTER LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE RULES, HE BETRAYS THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC IN THE COURTS. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS THE MAINSPRING OF INJUSTICE.
JUDGES OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO BE KNOWLEDGEABLE, HENCE, THEY ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE MORE THAN JUST A MODICUM OF ACQUAINTANCE WITH THE STATUTES AND PROCEDURAL RULES; THEY MUST KNOW THEM BY HEART.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 