A.M. No. RTJ-04-1826 - GREENSTAR BOCAY MANGANDINGAN, Complainant, vs. JUDGE SANTOS B. ADIONG, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Marawi City; ATTY. CAIRODING P. MARUHOM, Clerk of Court VI and MR. MASBOD M. SYBIL, Cash Clerk II, both of the RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Marawi City.RESOLUTION

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 the 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 hours provided herein. In the event that the application for preliminary injunction is denied or not resolved within the said period, the temporary restraining order is deemed automatically vacated. The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the same ground for which it was issued. x x x x Judge Adiong disregarded these provisions of the Rules. He could not plausibly claim that he issued a 72-hour TRO under the second paragraph of the rule quoted above because, first, he was not the executive judge. Second, his order did not state that the TRO was effective for 72 hours only. On the contrary, the defendants were ordered to desist from releasing the subject funds until further orders from this Court. Third, there was no showing that the order was being issued because of extreme urgency to justify the issuance of a 72-hour TRO. Judge Adiong only stated in his order that he was [a]cting on the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, without finding that the plaintiff was entitled thereto. [26] Judge Adiongs violations of the Rules in issuing the TRO are patent and inexcusable. This Court already ruled that failure to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95 [27] constitutes the offense of grave abuse of authority, misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. Indeed, a judge is presumed to know this Circular. Judge Adiongs failure to comply with the clear provisions on issuing TROs constitutes gross ignorance and gross inefficiency. [28] We also agree that the presumptions of good faith and regularity in the performance of judicial functions on the part of Judge Adiong were negated by the circumstances on record. First, there was no proper notice to the herein complainant and the other defendants in Civil Case No. 1912-03 that an application for the issuance of a TRO had been filed. Second, Judge Ad