Caguioa v Lavina

Facts:

In a letter-complaint by Attys. Caguioa and Ongkiko, Judge Lavina (of RTC, Pasig) was accused of grave misconduct for maliciously issuing void orders on a civil case between Tokyu Construction Co. and BF Corporation. The said corporations were prospective contractors for the construction of NAIA Terminal 2, of which the Manila Int’l Airport Authority (MIAA) invited to bid. However, these corp. were not able to agree on the specific portions of work done by each and the amount of fees to be paid for the work done for the construction, thus the civil case. Lavina issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) for the said case in Jan. 1997. Tokyu filed an Urgent Verified Opposition, bringing into attention of Lavina the existence of PD 1818 which prohibits the issuance of injunctive writs not only against gov’t entities but against any person or entity involved in the execution, implementation and op’n of gov’t infrastructure projects. However, Lavina issued another writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injuction in July 1997.

Issue:

W/N Judge Lavina committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing said orders.

Held:

Yes. The January 1997 Order completely ignored the prohibition of injunctive writs contained in PD 1818 and other Supreme Court Circulars. The Court held that Lavina may be either feigning misunderstanding of the law or manifesting his indifference to it. The Order also extended the initial 72-hr TRO to a full 20-day period which in effect, delays the construction of NAIA 2. By enjoining (1) Tokyu from receiving amount from MIAA as compensation for working for the project and (2) MIAA from directly paying Tokyu compensation for the execution of the project, the TRO issued interfered with, impeded and obstructed an entity directly and primarily responsible for the execution of a gov’t infrastructure project.

Ratio Decidendi:

The admin. liability of judge proceeds from failure to observe a simple, comprehensible, unequivocal mandate of PD 1818 .When a statute is clear and explicit, there is no need for any interpretation if it, there is only room for application. Judges should endeavor to ascertain facts and its applicable laws.