A.M. No. RTJ-20-2578 (Formerly A.M. No. 19-11-268-RTC ) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, FORMERLY OF BRANCH 66, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly [with the order of the OCA. Moreover,] except for Case Nos. 13-538 and 13-951 which were undergoing JDR before Branch 149, the six (6) other commercial cases subject of this administrative matter were transferred to Branch 137 on 27 and 28 May 2015, or after the conduct of the judicial audit, pursuant to A.M. No. 03-3-03-SC. [6] 2. As to the transfer of cases for judicial dispute resolution (JDR) to Branch 149 - Judge Villarosa averred that the transfer of cases to Branch 149 was brought about because Branch 149 was the lone commercial court that has jurisdiction over the said cases and that it has been a practice to refer commercial cases to Branch 149 whenever JDR failed. Because of this, it was not entirely his fault to follow such practice. [7] 3. As to the failure to rule on the formal offer of evidence before rendering a Decision in Civil Case No. 13-792 Judge Villarosa reasoned that said ruling regarding the formal offer of evidence was already included as part of the Decision dated May 18, 2015. Hence, according to him, it is not true that he did not rule on the formal offer of evidence. [8] 4. As to the consolidation of a case pending in Branch 66 with a case pending in Branch 10, RTC, Cebu City Judge Villarosa offered no viable excuse. It should be noted that he still proceeded in hearing Case No. 09-524 despite the order granting plaintiffs motion for consolidation joining the aforementioned case with Civil Case No. CEB-34790, pending before Branch 10, RTC, Cebu City. However, counsel for both parties updated him from time to time regarding the proceedings in Cebu. [9] 5. On the issuance of a TRO, the effectivity of which was "until further orders," in violation of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and Administrative Circular No. 20-95, which provide that in no case shall the total period of effectivity of the TRO exceed 20 days Judge Villarosa explained that the parties were in the process of arriving at an amicable settlement which were manifested during the conciliation proceedings. Therefore, it did not affect the pending cases. [10] 6. As to the issuance of an order restraining the DOTC for a period of 20 days from. performing any and all acts related in any manner to its procurement of additional light rail vehicles for the MRT-3, in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8975 Judge Villarosa averred that he issued a protection order which is akin to a restraining order. He insisted that the issuance of an ex parte protection order was in accord with the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules as, based on the pleadings, there were allegations which warranted the issuance of a protection order. This was an available remedy under the ADR Rules, which was a necessary relief to those who are entitled thereto. [11] Report and Recommendation In its Report and Recommendation [12] dated November 8, 2019, the OCA found Judge Villarosa guilty of violation of a Supreme Court directive and four counts of gross igno