SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1746. September 26, 2003.]

(formerly OCA IPI No. 10-1225-RTJ)

ROGER F. BORJA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ZORAYDA H.

SALCEDO, respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Before the Supreme Court is an administrative complaint against the

respondent, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court. Branch 32. of San Pablo
City, for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in issuing a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. SP-5775, without complying
with the Rules. Among other things, complainant contended that the TRO was
issued ex parte even if the complaint did not allege extreme urgency and that
its nonissuance would cause the applicant to suffer grave or irreparable injury:
that respondent judge did not conduct the required summary hearing: that it is
the executive judge who may issue an ex parte TRO. On his part. the
respondent judge manifested her willingness to submit the matter for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings on record. TcSaHC

The Court found that-respondent judge issued the TRO without

conducting the required summary hearing. Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 20-95 holds that before a temporary restraining order may be
issued, all parties must be heard in a summary hearing first, after the records
are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The only instance when a TRO
may be issued ex parte is when the matter is of such extreme urgency that
grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless it is issued immediately.
Under such circumstance, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective for
72 hours only. There was no showing that this case falls under the exceptional
circumstances enumerated by the administrative circular where a TRO may be
issued by the Executive Judge before assignment by raffle to a judge without
first conducting a summary hearing. The respondent judge had earlier been
apprised of the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and, therefore,
cannot be said that she is ignorant of the law. Hence, for her conscious
disregard of a basic rule on the issuance of the TRO, the respondent judge was
held liable for grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the proper
administration of justice. For this reason, the respondent judge was fined
P5,000.00.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; WHEN MAY BE ISSUED EX PARTE; RULE; CASE AT BAR. —
The rule holds that before a temporary restraining order may be issued, all
parties must be heard in a summary hearing first, after the records are
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The only instance when a TRO may
be issued ex parte is when the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave
injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless it is issued immediately. Under
such circumstance, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective for 72
hours only. The Executive Judge shall then summon the parties to a conference
during which the case should be raffled in their presence. Before the lapse of
the 72 hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case was raffled shall then
conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for
another period until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard,
which period shall in no case exceed 20 days including the original 72 hours.
Clearly, respondent Judge Salcedo as presiding judge of Branch 32 to which
Civil Case No. SP-5775 (01) was raffled, erred in issuing the questioned TRO
without conducting the necessary hearing first. Only the executive judge may
issue a TRO ex parte, under exceptional circumstances and following a
specified procedure herein-abovementioned.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES; JUDGES;
CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF BASIC RULE ON ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER CONSTITUTE GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY AND
CONDUCT . PREJUDICIAL TO THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE;
IMPOSABLE PENALTY. -- In the present case, there is neither allegation nor
proof that respondent judge was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty,
corruption or any other ill-motive. However, it cannot be ignored that on
September 7, 2000, barely a year before the filing of the present administrative
complaint, another administrative case had been lodged against respondent
judge by the same complainant concerning the issuance of a TRO in another
civil case without complying with the same requirements of Administrative
Circular No. 20-95, docketed as Adm. Matter No. OCA IPI 00-1058-RTJ. In
compliance with the directive of this Court, respondent filed her comment
therein which she now reiterates in the present administrative case. In other
words, respondent judge had earlier been apprised of the provisions of
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and therefore, it cannot be said that she is
ignorant of the law. For her conscious disregard of a basic rule on the issuance
of a TRO, Judge Salcedo must be held administratively liable not for gross
ignorance of the law but for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to
the proper administration of justice. For this reason, we find the
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to fine respondent in
the amount of P5,000.00 to be just and appropriate.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER; NO COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY JUDGMENTS
OR PROCESSES OF ANOTHER COURT OF CO-EQUAL POWER; RULE NOT
APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. — On the other hand, we accept the explanation
of Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umah, RTC Judge, Branch 30 San Pablo City regarding
her dissolution of the TRO issued by Judge Salcedo of Branch 32 since it was
issued in violation of SC Circular No. 20-95. While the rule is that no court has
the authority to nullify the judgments or processes of another court they having
co-equal power to grant the same reliefs, said rule does not apply to this case
for the simple reason that Judge Balisi-Umali did not nullify the process of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 another court but she merely acted as the presiding judge over a case that has
been duly assigned to her Branch by raffle after herein respondent had
inhibited herself upon motion of the complainant.

RESOLUTION

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J : p

In a Complaint dated January 11, 2001, Roger F. Borja accuses Presiding

Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 32) of San Pablo
City of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in issuing a
temporary restraining order (TRO) in Civil Case No. SP-5775 (01), entitled,
"Damaso T. Ambray vs. San Pablo City Water District, represented by General
Manager Roger Borja, et al. ", without complying with the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Complainant alleges that the civil case was filed with the RTC of San Pablo
City on January 2, 2001 and on the same day, assigned by raffle to Branch 32,
presided over by respondent Judge. The following day, respondent Judge issued
an Order granting the TRO, to wit:
Before this Court is a verified complaint praying for the issuance
of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which the Court finds to be
sufficient in form and substance.
Conformably with Rule 8 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines and
Section 1 of BP Blg. 224, the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary
Injunction is hereby set on January 4, 2001 at 8:30 o'clock in the
morning and at which date and time, the respondents/defendants are
hereby directed to appear and show cause why the writ prayed for
should not be granted.
In the meantime, in order to maintain the status quo between the
parties and to obviate irreparable damage the petitioner may suffer by
reason of and as a consequence of the acts sought to be enjoined
pending hearing on the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction,
the respondents/defendants are hereby enjoined from enforcing Board
Resolution No. 082, Series 2000 restraining Atty. Marciano Brion, Jr. to
sit, act and exercise the powers of a Director of San Pablo City Water
District representing the civic sector.

Let this Order together with the copy of the Complaint be served
forthwith upon the respondents/defendants who are hereby given a
period of ten (10) days from receipt within which to file their Answer.
The Deputy Sheriff of this Branch is hereby ordered to implement
the processes of this Court immediately.
SO ORDERED

City of San Pablo, January 3, 2001.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 and a copy thereof was received by the complainant that afternoon. 1

Complainant claims that the procedure followed by respondent Judge

violated Rule 58 Section 4 [b-c-d], 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on the
following grounds:
(a) Being a multi-sala court, it is the Executive Judge that may
issue an ex-parte TRO good for 72 hours.

(b) The notice of raffle was not preceded or contemporaneously

accompanied, by service of summons, with the complaint or
initiatory pleading and the applicant's affidavit and bond.
(c) Respondent Judge who was assigned to the case did not
conduct the required summary hearing with notice and in the
presence of the parties within 24 hours after the Sheriff's
return of service and/or the records are received by the
branch selected by raffle.
(d) The TRO was issued ex-parte without the required bond and
without alleging that the matter is of extreme urgency and
applicant would suffer grave or irreparable injury.

(e) Complainant did not ask for the issuance of a preliminary

injunction on January 4, 2001 in the morning. 2
Then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, through a letter dated
February 7, 2001, informed complainant that the subject matter of his
complaint is judicial in nature hence it shall be denied due course as there are
judicial remedies available under the Rules of Court yet to be exhausted. 3

On March 30, 2001, however, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
received a Motion from complainant dated March 29, 2001, praying for the
reconsideration of the notice of denial of his complaint on the strength of an
Order dated January 19, 2001 issued by Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali of the RTC
(Branch 30), San Pablo City, dissolving the questioned TRO for failure to comply
with the requisites of Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
Complainant argues that when the law transgressed is elementary, as in
the instant case, the failure to know or observe it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law. 4

Upon the report and recommendation of the OCA, this Court, in a

Resolution dated August 29, 2001 resolved to require:
(a) respondent Judge Zorayda Salcedo to COMMENT on the
complaint and motion for reconsideration within ten (10) days from
notice hereof; and (b) Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, then Regional Trial
Court Judge, San Pablo City, Branch 30, to EXPLAIN within ten (10)
days from notice hereof why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for issuing an order dissolving a temporary restraining
order issued by a court of co-equal jurisdiction." 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 On October 16, 2001, respondent judge submitted her comment and
apologized for the delay in its submission explaining that she, as well as her
husband, underwent cataract operation. 6 She informed the Court that she is
adopting as her comment the Indorsement dated November 16, 2000 which
she had submitted to this Court in connection with OCA IPI No. 00-1058-RTJ, an
earlier administrative case also filed by herein complainant against her but
which was dismissed by this Court for lack of merit. 7 She likewise emphasized
her "denial of partiality, ignorance of the law, bias and so forth being attributed
to her by complainant for the reverse is true as it has been (her) desire . . . to
always observe impartiality, fairness, and dedication in the administration of
justice." 8
Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali in her Compliance dated October 17, 2001,
explained her actions relative to the case as follows:
May the Honorable First Division be informed that Civil Case No.
SP-5757(01) . . . for Declaration of Nullity of Board Resolution No. 082,
Series 2000 and for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order was
originally raffled to Branch 32 of the San Pablo City, RTC presided over
by the Honorable Zoraida Herradura Salcedo on January 2, 2001. The
following day Judge Salcedo issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO). On even date, defendant Borja filed a Motion to Inhibit Judge
Herradura [Salcedo] from the case and which the latter granted. On
January 5, 2001, defendant Brion filed a Motion to Dissolve Temporary
Restraining Order anchored on the ground that the TRO was issued in
violation of Rule 58, Section 4(d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
and is therefore a patent nullity. On even date, the case was raffled to
the undersigned.
The undersigned resolved the Motion to Dissolve Temporary
Restraining Order on January 19, 2001. A copy of her Order is hereto
attached. The undersigned dissolved the TRO because it was issued in
violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 20-95.

The record of the case forwarded to the undersigned from

Branch 32 did not show that any Order setting a summary hearing on
the application for TRO was caused to be issued by Branch 32 for
service to all the parties.
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 mandates that the application
for TRO shall be acted upon only after all the parties are heard in a
summary hearing.

The undersigned humbly submits that as aforestated, Judge

Salcedo inhibited herself from the case which was thereafter reraffled
to the sala of the undersigned. The motion to Dissolve TRO had to be
resolved.
The undersigned in dissolving the TRO did not ignore or overlook
the fact that it was issued by a co-equal court, the orders or processes
of which the undersigned cannot interfere with, pass upon much less
reverse. However, under the circumstances obtaining where it was
clearly shown and the undersigned was convinced that the TRO was
irregularly issued, somehow she had to correct the error. It was her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 conviction then and now that by sustaining the TRO because it was
issued by a co-equal court would tantamount to correcting a mistake
with another mistake. 9 (Emphasis supplied)

In a Resolution dated July 17, 2002, this Court referred the case to the
Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. 10

Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez submitted his Report, dated

November 4, 2002, pertinent portions of which read as follows:
In the study of the entire record of the case, the undersigned
observed that respondent judge did not controvert the material
allegations in the complaint. Her comment dated November 16, 2000,
specifically relates to the incidents involved in Civil Case No. SP-
5454(99) which is the subject matter of OCA IPI No. 00-1058-RTJ. We
therefore find unavailing the explanation of Judge Salcedo.
We find that respondent judge failed to comply with
Administrative Circular No. 20-95. No order setting a summary hearing
on the application for temporary restraining order was furnished the
defendants. A summary hearing can not be dispensed with in view of
the mandatory requirement that the application for a TRO shall be
acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing after
the record of the case are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle.
A TRO may however be issued ex-parte if the matter is of such
extreme urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise
unless it is issued immediately. Under such circumstances, the
executive judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72)
hours from its issuance. But such a procedure is not applicable to
respondent judge because she is not the executive judge of RTC, San
Pablo City. (Emphasis supplied).
I n Golangco vs. Villanueva, 278 SCRA 414, it was held that
respondent judge's disregard of the Supreme Court's pronouncement
on temporary restraining orders was not just ignorance of the
prevailing rule; to a large extent, it was misconduct, conduct prejudicial
to the proper administration of justice and grave abuse of authority.
Likewise, in Adao vs. Lorenzo, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1496, 316 SCRA
570, respondent judge was fined in the amount of P5,000.00 for his
failure to abide by Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
Concerning the dissolution of the questioned TRO by Judge
Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, RTC, Branch 30, San Pablo City, we find the
same to be proper. Judge Umali has satisfactorily explained that she
granted the defendant's motion to dissolve TRO on 19 January 2000 or
only after Judge Salcedo inhibited herself from trying the case and the
case re-raffled to the former's sala on 5 January 2000.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended
that:
(1) OCA IPI No. 01-1225-RTJ be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (2) Respondent Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo, RTC, Branch 32, San
Pablo City be fined in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00)
PESOS for her failure to comply with Administrative Circular No.
20-95, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts in the
future shall be dealt with more severely; and
(3) The explanation of Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali, then RTC Judge,
Branch 30, San Pablo City be ACCEPTED for being meritorious. 11

On March 27, 2003, complainant submitted a Memorandum emphasizing

that: respondent judge is not an Executive Judge; the complaint in Civil Case
No. SP-5775 (01) did not allege extreme urgency for the issuance of a TRO
neither did it state that its non-issuance would cause grave injustice and
irreparable injury to the plaintiff; the TRO issued by respondent judge on
January 3, 2001 failed to declare that it was effective for 72 hours only; and on
January 19, 2001, Judge Marivic T. Balisi-Umali dissolved the TRO issued by
respondent judge for violation of SC Circular No. 20-95. 12
Respondent judge, on the other hand, manifested, through a letter dated
February 13, 2003, her willingness to submit the matter for resolution on the
basis of the pleadings on record. 13
After a review of the records of the case, we find the recommendations of
the OCA to be well taken.
Administrative Circular No. 20-95 provides:
1. Where an application for temporary restraining order (TRO)
or writ of preliminary injunction is included in a complaint or any
initiatory pleading filed with the trial court, such complaint or initiatory
pleading shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in
the presence of such party or counsel.

2. The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all
parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within twenty-four
(24) hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by
raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately after raffle.
3. If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO
is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive
Judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours
from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for
conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence.
Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the
Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another
period until a hearing in the pending application for preliminary
injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period of the
TRO exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72)
hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge.
4. With the exception of the provisions which necessarily
involve multiple-sala stations, these rules shall apply to single-sala
stations especially with regard to immediate notice to all parties of all
applications for TRO.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In this case, it is not disputed that respondent judge issued a TRO without
conducting the required summary hearing. There is no showing that it falls
under the exceptional circumstances enumerated by the afore-quoted
administrative circular where a TRO may be issued by the Executive Judge
before assignment by raffle to a judge without first conducting a summary
hearing.
In defense, respondent judge adopts as her comment in this case, the 2nd
indorsement dated November 16, 2002 which she submitted in OCA IPI No. 00-
1058-RTJ, which is an earlier administrative case filed against her by herein
complainant. In said indorsement, respondent talked about the urgency of the
issuance of the restraining order in that particular case and also mentions that:
. . . A judge may not be held administratively accountable for
every erroneous order or decision he renders. To unjustifiably hold
otherwise, assuming that he has erred would make his position doubly
unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the laws
in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.
The error must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or evident bad
faith.
As a matter of public policy then, the acts of a judge in his official
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts
are erroneous. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or
improper consideration are sufficient defenses in which a judge
charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge. (Quisumbing, J.,
Annabelle R. Gutierrez V. Hon. Rodolfo Palattao , A.M. RTJ-95-1326, July
8, 1998). 14

We find the explanation of respondent in the present case to be

insufficient to excuse her from observing strict compliance with Supreme Court
Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
As previously explained by this Court, there are differences in the
requisites for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and in the life of a
TRO when it is issued by an Executive Judge and when it is issued by a
Presiding Judge of a court. In Adao vs. Lorenzo, 15 we clarified:
If the temporary restraining order was issued by respondent in
his capacity as Executive Judge, the TRO was good for 72 hours only.
Within that period he was required to summon the parties to a
conference before issuing the TRO and then assign the case by raffle.
Thus, par. 3 of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 provides:

If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is

issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive
Judge shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours
from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for
conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence.
Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two (72) hours, the
Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary
hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another
period until a hearing in the pending application for preliminary
injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 TRO exceed (20) days, including the original seventy-two (72) hours,
for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge. (Emphasis added)
On the other hand, if the TRO was issued after Civil Case No.
3391 had been raffled to Branch 2 and respondent judge issued it in
his capacity as Acting Judge, then he should have complied with the
following provision of Administrative Circular No. 20-95, par. 2:
The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all
parties are heard in a summary hearing conducted within
twenty-four (24) hours after the records are transmitted to the
branch selected by raffle. The records shall be transmitted
immediately after raffle. 16 (Emphasis supplied).
In this case, respondent judge issued the questioned TRO in her capacity
a s Presiding Judge. She should have known that a summary hearing was
indispensable.
As we explained in Abundo vs. Judge Manio, Jr. 17
. . . The holding of a summary hearing prior to the issuance of a
temporary restraining order is mandatory, in view of the requirement
that the application for a temporary restraining order shall be acted
upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing after the
records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. In other
words, a summary hearing may not be dispensed with.
A TRO can be issued ex parte if the matter is of such extreme
urgency that grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless it is
issued immediately. Under such circumstance, the executive judge
shall issue the TRO effective only for seventy-two (72) hours from its
issuance. The executive judge is then required to summon the parties
to a conference, during which the case should be raffled in their
presence. Before the expiry of the seventy-two hours, the presiding
judge to whom the case was raffled shall conduct a summary hearing
to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period
until a hearing on the pending application for preliminary injunction
can be held. 18 (Emphasis supplied)

The reason for this is that Administrative Circular No. 20-95 aims to restrict
the ex parte issuance of a TRO to cases of extreme urgency in order to avoid
grave injustice and irreparable injury. 19

The rule holds that before a temporary restraining order may be issued,
all parties must be heard in a summary hearing first, after the records are
transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The only instance when a TRO may
be issued ex parte is when the matter is of such extreme urgency that grave
injustice and irreparable injury will arise unless it is issued immediately. Under
such circumstance, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO effective for 72
hours only. The Executive Judge shall then summon the parties to a conference
during which the case should be raffled in their presence. Before the lapse of
the 72 hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case was raffled shall then
conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for
another period until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 which period shall in no case exceed 20 days including the original 72 hours.
Clearly, respondent Judge Salcedo as presiding judge of Branch 32 to
which Civil Case No. SP-5775 (01) was raffled, erred in issuing the questioned
TRO without conducting the necessary hearing first. Only the executive judge
may issue a TRO ex parte, under exceptional circumstances and following a
specified procedure herein-abovementioned.

In meting out the correct penalty, we considered the following cases:

Adao vs. Judge Lorenzo 20 where this Court pronounced that the failure of
respondent therein, as an Executive Judge, to abide by Administrative Circular
No. 20-95 in issuing the TRO constituted grave abuse of authority, misconduct,
and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice for which reason,
a fine of P5,000.00 was imposed on respondent judge. 21
Abundo vs. Judge Manio, Jr. 22 where the Court reprimanded respondent
judge and warned him for failing to comply with Administrative Circular No. 20-
9 5 . 23 The Court explained that while a judge's disregard of the Supreme
Court's pronouncement on temporary restraining orders is not just ignorance of
the prevailing rule, but to a large extent, constitutes misconduct, conduct
prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, and grave abuse of authority;
however, to be punishable, an act constituting ignorance of the law must not
only be contradictory to existing law and jurisprudence, but must also be
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. 24
In the present case, there is neither allegation nor proof that respondent
judge was motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, corruption or any other ill-
motive.
However, it cannot be ignored that on September 7, 2000, barely a year
before the filing of the present administrative complaint, another administrative
case had been lodged against respondent judge by the same complainant
concerning the issuance of a TRO in another civil case 25 without complying
with the same requirements of Administrative Circular No. 20-95, docketed as
Adm. Matter No. OCA IPI 00-1058-RTJ. In compliance with the directive of this
Court, respondent filed her comment therein which she now reiterates in the
present administrative case.

Unfortunately, the issue on the issuance of the TRO was sidetracked when
the administrative matter was dismissed by this Court for lack of merit per its
Resolution dated March 12, 2001, based on the recommendation of then Court
Administrator Alfredo Benipayo that what complainant assailed was the wisdom
of the decision rendered by respondent judge; that there was already a
pronouncement made by this Court that there is no reversible error committed
by respondent in the assailed decision; and that complainants themselves
admitted in their complaint that the decision was rendered by the court after
the case was tried on the merits.
In other words, respondent judge had earlier been apprised of the
provisions of Administrative Circular No. 20-95 and therefore, it cannot be said
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 that she is ignorant of the law. For her conscious disregard of a basic rule on
the issuance of a TRO, Judge Salcedo must be held administratively liable not
for gross ignorance of the law but for grave abuse of authority and conduct
prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.
For this reason, we find the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator to fine respondent in the amount of P5,000.00 to be just and
appropriate.
On the other hand, we accept the explanation of Judge Marivic T. Balisi-
Umali, RTC Judge, Branch 30, San Pablo City regarding her dissolution of the
TRO issued by Judge Salcedo of Branch 32 since it was issued in violation of SC
Circular No. 20-95. While the rule is that no court has the authority to nullify the
judgments or processes of another court they having co-equal power to grant
the same reliefs, said rule does not apply to this case for the simple reason that
Judge Balisi-Umali did not nullify the process of another court but she merely
acted as the presiding judge over a case that has been duly assigned to her
Branch by raffle after herein respondent had inhibited herself upon motion of
the complainant.

WHEREFORE, we find Judge Zorayda H. Salcedo of the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 32, San Pablo City guilty of grave abuse of authority and conduct
prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. She is imposed a fine of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition of the same
or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 17.
2. Id., at p. 2.
3. Id., at p. 20.
4. Rollo, pp. 23–24.
5. Id., at p. 33.
6. Id., at p. 38.
7. Id., at p. 40.
8. Id., at p. 39.
9. Rollo, pp. 58–59.
10. Rollo, p. 86.
11. Rollo, pp. 91–92.
12. Id., at pp. 102–103.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 13. Id., at p. 104.
14. Rollo, p. 46.
15. A.M. No. RTJ-99-1496, 316 SCRA 570 (1999).

16. Id., at pp. 575–576.

17. A.M. No. RTJ-98-1416, August 6, 1999, 312 SCRA 1, 19 (1999).
18. Id., at pp. 18–19.
19. Vda. de Sayson vs. Zerna, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506, 362 SCRA 409,414 (2001).
20. Supra, note 15.
21. Id., at p. 579.
22. Supra, note 17.
23. Id., at p. 21.
24. Id., at pp. 19–20.
25. Civil Case No. SP-5454 (99), entitled, "Atty. Antonio Lacsam, et al., vs.
Roger Borja and Teresita Rivera".

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com