Panes, et. al. v Dinopol A.M. OCAIPI No.

072618RTJ (2013)
FACTS: Respondent was the presiding judge of the RTC Branch 24, Koronadal City. On 16
November 2006, Mayor Fernando Miguel appointed Engr. Joselito Reyes, Carlito Uy and three
others to the board of directors (BOD) of the Koronadal Water District (KWD). Their
appointments were subsequently confirmed by the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA).
These appointments were communicated by LWUA to Eleanor P. Gomba, the general manager
of KWD. However, Gomba refused to recognize the new BOD, prompting LWUA to replace her
and to appoint Rey Vargas as officer in charge of the office of the general manager. On
February 14, 2007, Gomba transferred her office to Arellano St., Kidapawan City. She then filed
a Complaint against Vargas for injunction and damages with application for the ex parte
issuance of TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction. Judge Alzate issued a 72 hour TRO. The
case was then raffled to Judge Dinopol.
On February 23, 2007, Dinopol issued an order for a writ of preliminary injunction against
Vargas enjoining him from acting as officer in charge of KWD. The order was ignored by the
complainants. Judge Dinopol then issued various assailed orders which are the basis of the
present administrative cases.
On March 9, 2007, the judge issued a 20day TRO to Yaphockun, Ang and other members of the
Board of Directors. On March 24, 2007, the judge issued an Order to return all KWD properties
to the Arellano office ordering the complainants to explain within 12 hours why they should not
be cited in contempt of Court for violating the previous Orders. After an hour, he ordered to
arrest the Panes, the security guards and all persons inside the KWD Del Pilar office for
restituting March 24, 2007 Order.
On April 13, 2007, he ordered to augment 2 PNP teams at KWD Arellano office and directed the
PNP to arrest and detain Mayor Fernando Miguel. He also ordered them to return the properties
to KWD Arellano office
On 13 August 2007, Eden V. Castro, the owner and administrator of the twostorey building
where the KWD Del Pilar office is located, filed a Complaint alleging that because of the Orders
issued by respondent, she had been deprived of the use of the building and had lost a
considerable amount of income from the lease of the property. She thus demanded the payment
of damages from respondent.
Two petitions for certiorari were also filed against Judge Dinopol, assailing the March 24, 2007
twin orders and April 13, 2007 twin orders, respectively, having issued in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or in excess of discretion. Two cases were consolidated and the CA
declared both orders to be null and void on the ff grounds: (1) absence of a notice of hearing
(2) lack of jurisdiction and (3) lack of due process.
ISSUES:
1)Whether or not the issuance by Judge Dinopol of the 24 March 2007 order constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.

2)Whether or not Judge Dinopol is civilly liable for damages.

HELD:
1) Yes. The Court agree with Office of the Court Administrator that Judge Dinopol was aware
that there is need to give the parties involved the opportunity to be heard before he cited them in
contempt. Judge Dinopols issuance of the Orders was in total disregard of the Rules of Court
and with grave abuse of authority.
2) On the issue of whether respondent may be held liable for damages, we rule in the negative.
In Alzua v. Johnson, we explained that in civil actions for damages, judges of superior and
general jurisdiction are not liable to answer for what they do in the exercise of their judicial
functions, provided they are acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction. For it is a general
principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in
exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without
apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might
feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge would be inconsistent with the possession of
this freedom, and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either
respectable or useful.