A.M. No. RTJ-11-2298 February 22, 2012 ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA and ATTY. CLARITO SERVILLAS, Complainants, vs.

. JUDGE VICTOR A. CAN OY, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Surigao City, Respondent. Facts: This is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Rene O. Medina and Atty. Clar ito Servillas (complainants) against Judge Victor A. Canoy (respondent judge), P residing Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, Undue Interference and Gross Ineffici ency, relative to Civil Case No. 7077 entitled "Zenia A. Pagels v. Spouses Reyna ldo dela Cruz"; Spec. Proc. No. 7101 entitled "Noel P.E.M. Schellekens v. P/S, S upt. David Y. Ombao, et al."; and Civil Case No. 7065 entitled "Heirs of Matilde Chato Alcaraz v. Philex-Lascogon Mining Corporation, et al." In Civil Case No. 7077: Petitioner Zenia Pagels (Pa filed a Petition for Injunct ion with prayer for issuance of Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Or der (TRO), Accounting, Damages and Attorney s Fees against respondents Spouses Reyna ldo and Racquel dela Cruz. The case was raffled, where respondent judge was the acting presiding judge. After serving respondent spouses with the Summons, copy of the Petition and Notice of hearing, respondent judge conducted the hearing an d granted. The TRO was implemented resulting in the transfer of possession of th e duly-licensed primary and elementary school and church from respondent spouses to Pagels. Respondent judge granted the preliminary injunction without need of a bond. Resp ondent spouses filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which respondent judge set fo r hearing on a future date. Subsequently, respondent judge reset the hearing to another date and reset the hearing again on another date. Upon assumption as the new presiding judge, Judge Evangeline Yuipco-Bayana issued an Order revoking th e preliminary injunction earlier issued by respondent judge. In their Complaint, complainants contend that respondent judge should be charged with gross ignorance of the law and procedure: (1) for disregarding the basic a nd elementary principle that TRO and preliminary injunction are improper remedie s to transfer possession of one property to another whose title has not been cle arly established; and (2) for failure to decide the Motion for Reconsideration w ithin a period of 30 days as required by the rules and jurisprudence. Respondent judge claims that he issued the TRO and preliminary injunction judici ously and without bad faith or irregularity. He argues that he resolved cases ba sed on the merits of the case and if there was indeed error, it merely constitut es an error of judgment. Respondent judge further states that the alleged error was already aptly corrected by Judge Bayana s reversal. Regarding the alleged delay in the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration, respondent judge defends hi mself by explaining that the Motion was not submitted for resolution. Respondent judge argues that respondent spouses lawyer (complainant Atty. Medina) failed to f ile a responsive pleading to the Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration and th at the hearing of the Motion was further reset to 12 March 2010. Issue: Whether or not the preliminary injunction was properly issued in favor o f Pagels whose legal title is disputed. Held: The Court held in the negative. Well-settled is the rule that an injunction cannot be issued to transfer possess ion or control of a property to another when the legal title is in dispute betwe en the parties and the legal title has not been clearly established. In this cas e, respondent judge evidently disregarded this established doctrine applied in n umerous cases when it granted the preliminary injunction in favor of Pagels whos e legal title is disputed. When the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance o f the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Respondent judge should have been more cautious in issuing writs of preliminary injunctions because as consistently held these writs are strong arms of equity w hich must be issued with great deliberation."5 In Fortune Life Insurance Co., In c. v. Luczon,6 the Court held the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law whe n he failed to conduct a hearing prior to issuance of an injunction in violation of the Rules of Court. It was further emphasized in Zuo v. Cabredo,7 where it was

held that the act of respondent in issuing the TRO to enjoin the Bureau of Cust oms and its officials from detaining the subject shipment amounted to gross igno rance of the law.