MELISSA DOMONDON ET. AL. VS. JUDGE PERCIVAL MANDAP LOPEZ A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1696. JUNE 20, 2002

Facts: This case against respondent judge arose from a case filed by complainants who were all students of AMA College. Said students were members of the editorial board of the school’s official publication who were expelled from the school for alleged libelous and scandalous writings in a spoof paper they published.

Complainants filed a case for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against AMA Computer College and Mauricia Herrera, Dean of Student Affairs. Complainants pressed their request for the immediate resolution of their application for preliminary mandatory injunction before the end of the enrollment period so that they can enroll in the first trimester of SY 1997-1998. They alleged that respondent judge failed to resolve their application for mandatory injunction on time to the prejudice of the complainants. Respondent countered however that there was no provision in law providing for a timeframe in resolving such application. On June 14, 1997, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, respondent judge dismissed the case itself after finding that the expulsion of the complainants from the school was for cause and was effected only after an investigation during which they were duly heard.


Issue: Whether or not the judge is liable for the delay.


Held: Yes. Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to “dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods”.

Judge Lopez cannot invoke the absence of any provision prescribing a period within which to resolve an application for a writ of injunction. He should have been guided by the exigencies of the situation. He knew that complainants were seeking the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction precisely because they wanted to be readmitted by the college and for them to be able to enroll in the first trimester of school year 1997-1998.

It is also undisputed that no trial was ever conducted by respondent judge before dismissing the complaint for lack of merit. Respondent judge could not do this since there were issues of facts which had to be resolved.