GABRIEL DELA PAZ v. JUDGE SANTOS B.

ADIONG
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1857
November 23, 2004
Austria-Martinez, J.

Facts: Gabriel dela Paz, Officer-in-Charge of Fund for Assistance to Private Education charged Judge
Santos B. Adiong of the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City, Branch 8 of gross ignorance of the law
and/or abuse of authority. Pacasum College, Inc., filed a petition for mandamus with application for a
preliminary mandatory injunction against FAPE.

Respondent judge issued an Order of Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction requiring FAPE and its
officials to prepare and issue a check in the amount of P4,000,000.00 representing the entitlement of
the petitioner for School Year 2001-2002, payable to its President/Chairman Datu Saripada Ali Pacasum.

FAPE in its motion claimed that the issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was in
disregard of the notice and hearing requirements under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

Both parties submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.

The Court Administrator submitted his Report finding respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of law
and grave abuse of authority as correctly claimed by the complainant, respondent judge had indeed
issued the two (2) orders of March 4 & 5, 2002 without complying with the mandatory requirement of
notice and hearing under Section 5, Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that:

"No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or
person sought to be enjoined x x x."

Issue: Is the Respondent Judge guilty of grave abuse of authority when he issued the orders dated
March 4 and March 5, 2002?

Held: Yes, the rule on injunction as found under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court provides that the same
can only be granted upon a verified application showing facts entitling the applicant to the relief
demanded and upon the filing of a bond executed to the party or person enjoined. It is also provided
that no preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to the party or person
sought to be enjoined unless shown that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before
the matter can be heard on notice; that a temporary restraining order may be issued effective for a
period of twenty (20) days from service on the party sought to be enjoined.

The Order dated March 4, 2002 failed to show that respondent conducted a hearing before the
injunction was granted or that complainant was given prior notice thereof. In fact, complainant stressed
that FAPE was not at all served with summons before the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was
issued. It was not also shown whether the applicant posted a bond and the same was approved before
the order granting the preliminary mandatory injunction was issued. The Order merely stated that the
petition was sufficient in form and substance without even stating the facts which would support the
granting of the injunction. This is a clear violation of the rule.

Moreover, Section 21 of B.P. Blg. 129, provides:

 SEC. 21. Original Jurisdiction in other cases. – Regional Trial Courts shall exercise original
jurisdiction:

(1) In the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus
and injunction which may be enforced in any part of their respective regions;

… … …

Respondent's court is in Marawi City which falls within the twelfth judicial region. The writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction issued by respondent requiring FAPE, which is holding office in Makati
City to issue a check payable to Datu Saripada Ali Pacasum, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of
respondent's court. Thus, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the respondent is void
considering that his authority to issue an injunction is limited only to and operative only within his
respective provinces or districts.

Consequently, the Order dated March 5, 2002 directing the sheriff of Makati to serve the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to FAPE is a jurisdictional faux pas as the respondent can only enforce
his orders within the territorial jurisdiction of his court.

In the case of PNB versus Pineda, 197 SCRA 1 (1991), held that:

"Regional Trial Courts can only enforce their writs of injunction within their respective designated
territories."

Likewise, in the case of Embassy Farms, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (1990), it was held that:

"Generally, an injunction under Section 21 of the Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 is enforceable
within the region. The reason is that the trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin acts being performed or about to be performed outside its
territorial boundaries."