[A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525. June 25, 2018.

]
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4435-RTJ)
SAMUEL N. RODRIGUEZ, complainant, vs. HON. OSCAR P. NOEL, JR.,
Executive Judge/Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of General,
Santos City, Branch 35, respondent.

FACTS:
In the complaint-adavit, Rodriguez stated that he took over the operations of Golden
Dragon International Terminals, Inc. (GDITI) after the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunction (As Amended) dated January 28, 2014 was implemented. The previous
management, headed by a certain Cirilo Basalo (Basalo), was supposed to cease from
handling the operations of GDITI, but when the latter deed the injunctive writ, Rodriguez
led a motion for its re-implementation, which was granted. Consequently, Rodriguez and
the court sheriff went to the port to inspect the operations and saw a truck reportedly owned
by Basalo transporting solid wastes from the docking vessel. Another vehicle driven by
Basalo suddenly came from behind with the intent to sideswipe him. Then another vehicle
stopped and a number of men pointed their guns at him. Fortunately, he was able to run
away and hide.

Rodriguez claimed that respondent issued a 72-hour temporary restraining order (TRO)
enjoining him from causing any act that might cause violence and to maintain the status
quo in GDITI. A Notice of special raffle was also issued by respondent and was received
by Rodriguez's aunt on the same date. To his surprise, however, on July 14, 2015, the 72-
hour TRO was extended for another twenty (20) days, or way beyond the 72-hour period.
Rodriguez claimed that he was also not furnished a copy of the notice of hearing relative
to the extension of the TRO.

Respondent claimed that he issued the TRO on July 10, 2015, a Friday, in his capacity as
an Executive Judge. As no raffle could be conducted within that 72-hour period as required
by the Rules of Court because it was a weekend, the special raffling was set the following
Monday, or on July 13, 2015 with the case eventually being raffled to him. Unfortunately,
he could not immediately act on it because he and his staff had to conduct hearings. Thus,
the hearing for the extension of the TRO — for the parties to maintain the status quo and
refrain from causing any act that might trigger violence — was set the day after, or on July
14, 2015; Rodriguez, however, was not directed to cease and desist from his business
operations.

ISSUE:
The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent should be held
administratively liable for violation of the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct,
Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Discretion, and Bias and Partiality.

RULING:
To recount, Rodriguez charges respondent with administrative liability because he issued
the June 28, 2015 Temporary Release Order before the petition for bail was filed with the
OCC on June 29, 2015.
The argument is untenable. There is nothing in the law or the rules that prevented
respondent from acting on the bail application submitted to him on a weekend.
Accordingly, respondent acted in accordance with the rules in granting the application for
bail.

As regards the 72-hour TRO the Court agrees that respondent extended the TRO beyond
the period allowed by Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, respondent had
been remiss in the issuance of the Order extending the TRO and the scrupulous observance
of the requisites therefor. Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-8- 10-SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious
charge.

The Court, however, observes that this is respondent's first infraction of this nature in his
sixteen (16) years of service in the Judiciary. Moreover, the Court is satisfied with his
explanation that he had to attend to his duties at the EJOW, thus constraining him to delay
by one (1) day the conduct of the summary hearing for the extension of the TRO. Together,
these circumstances mitigate respondent's liability.

WHEREFORE, Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos
City, Branch 35 is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall denitely be dealt with more severely by this
Court. He is further reminded to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties.