A.M. No. RTJ-02-1674 - BAILINANG P. MAROHOMBSAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly issue the corresponding order. However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala court or the presiding judge of a single-sala court may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours from issuance but he shall immediately comply with provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours provided therein. Complainant also contends that respondent issued an order dated March 22, 1999 making it appear that a preliminary conference was held and the parties agreed to waive the raffle of the case when, in truth and in fact, no conference was held. We are not persuaded. The order of March 22, 1999 stated in part: In the preliminary conference scheduled this morning, counsels of both parties jointly agreed to waive the raffling of the case and for this court to continue further proceedings considering that the plaintiff is the daughter of Hon. Yusoph Pangadapun, Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 10 and per manifestation of Atty. Tingcap Mortaba, counsel for the plaintiff, should the case be raffled to Branch 9, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Amer R. Ibrahim will voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case. In the summary hearing that followed for the purpose of determining whether the TRO previously issued on March 17, 1999 shall be extended or not, the counsels is (sic) submitting the same for resolution on the basis of the pleading. We note that complainant did not dispute the order of respondent judge immediately after its issuance. Hence, the presumption was that the order in question was proper and well taken. Complainant likewise insists that respondent judge tampered with the records of the case, as shown by its inconsistent pagination. We agree with the finding of Justice Labitoria who accepted respondent judges explanation that: Resolutions or orders are dictated either in open Court or inside the chamber. The attending stenographers type the same in a draft form and then presented to me for proper correction or modification before finally typing them for my signature. Because of the many number of cases calendared daily and other related works being attended to, all this paper works take a little time to finish until finally attach (sic) to the records of the cases. This explains the little delay sometimes in sewing or attaching some orders or other Court processes to the