In the very fresh cases of AM No. RTJ-07-2063, Republic v. Judge Caguioa; AM No. RTJ-07-2064, CIR v. Judge Caguioa; and AM No. RTJ-07-2066, Burns Jr. v. Judge Caguioa, June 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court dismissed veteran trial judge Ramon S. Caguioa whose sala is located in the lucrative city of Olongapo, the site of the rich Subic Freeport where multi-billion companies do business.
According to an item in the Supreme Court website, the Court has dismissed the Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, presiding judge of the Olongapo City RTC, Branch 74, for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In a 31-page per curiam consolidated decision, the Court ordered the forfeiture of Judge Caguioa’s retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. Judge Caguioa was faulted for his erroneous issuances of writ of preliminary injunctions in cases pending before his sala.
“Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Basic rules should be at the palm of their hands their inexcusable failure to observe basic laws and rules will render them administratively liable,” the Court said.
The first administrative case stemmed from the civil case Indigo Distribution Corp. Inc v. Secretary of Finance filed before Judge Caguioa’s court. Indigo, et al., importers and traders licensed to operate inside the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, have been granted by Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) certificates of registration and tax exemptions.
Indigo, et al. filed a case before Judge Caguioa’s sala when SBMA, pursuant to RA 7227 (An Act Accelerating the Conversion of Military Reservations into Other Public uses, Creating the Bases Conversion and Development Authority for this Purpose, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes), subsequently required them to pay corresponding duties and taxes on their importation of cigars, cigarettes, liquors and wines
Judge Caguioa granted Indigo’s petition for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and approved the injunction bond amounting to PhP1 million for all petitioners. During the pendency of Republic’s appeal before the High Court, Judge Caguioa granted various ex parte motions for interventions of different corporations claiming to be similarly situation with Indigo and allowed them to ride on the injunctive bond posted by Indigo. The High Court subsequently declared the assailed order of judge null and void citing for grave abuse of discretion.
The High Court ruled that taxes are the lifeblood of the government and it is of public interest that the collection of which should not be restrained. It held that the applicants for the writ showed no clear and unmistakable right that was material and substantial to warrant the issuance of writ, nor the urgency and necessity of such. Worst, Judge Caguioa, in his issuance of the said writ, had failed to observe due process when the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic, was not served copies of the motions for intervention.
In a similar case, Judge Caguioa erroneously issued a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction in the petition for mandamus filed by District Collector of Customs in the Port of Subic Andres D. Salvacion, Jr. against his then would-be replacement Gracia Z Caringal, et al. Subsequently, he enjoined the CIR and the Finance Secretary to observe and respect his issuances.
On appeal, the CA ruled that Judge Caguioa should have dismissed the case for improper venue. The CA said that the petition for mandamus, which relates to the acts of officers, must be filed in the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area covering said officers, which in this case was Manila because the main office of Commission was in Manila.
The High Court said that Judge Caguioa’s issuance of the writ in the above case did not satisfy the legal requisite for its issuances and was enforced outside his territorial jurisdiction. It upheld the CA ruling that the applicant had failed to establish that he has a clear and unmistakable right that was violated so as to warrant the issuance of an injunction.
Judge Caguioa was also found guilty of simple misconduct and ordered suspended from office without pay for three months in a third administrative case which stemmed from another civil case. The case against his co-respondent Sheriff Christopher T. Perez, however, was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court said Sheriff Perez cannot be faulted for implementing a writ of execution pursuant to Judge Caguioa’s order.
The High Court held that Judge Caguioa did not adjudicate any rights of the parties and resolved no other matter except the dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. Thus, his order to place private respondents in possession of the disputed property is not necessarily included in or necessary to the judgment of the dismissal of the case on the ground of “prescription.”
The High Court said that the execution was highly improper because of the fact that Judge Caguioa has been apprised of the pendency of the reversion suits filed by the Republic involving the same parcels of land in another Olongapo RTC.