Esguerra v. Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004

Esguerra v.
Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004
FACTS:
Esguerra is a licensed nutritionist-dietitian presently employed as the Chief Dietitian of the
Philippine Heart Center (PHC). On 15 May 2000, AB Food and Beverages Philippines (AB
Food) entered into a contract with JWT whereby the latter would handle the advertising,
marketing, promotional and general publicity requirements of the former. on 14 May 2003,
AGL, thru its Director/General Manager Nicanor G. Aguirre (Aguirre), wrote a letter to the
PHC, inviting nutritionists from the said hospital to participate in a study it was conducting.
Aguirre gave the assurance that "all information that would be generated from this study
would be kept completely confidential," and the AGL representative bearing the letter
made it understood that, among other things, a talent fee of P20,000.00. On 16 June 2003,
at about noontime, an Ovaltine commercial was aired on television with Esguerra
appearing therein. According to Esguerra, there was absolutely no advice from either JWT
or AGL prior to the airing of the commercial that she had been chosen to so appear therein.
Neither did JWT and AGL secure the required clearance from the PHC Director nor
did they pay Esguerra any talent fee for the commercial.
After almost three weeks of waiting without her application for injunctive relief being set
for hearing, Esguerra filed on 26 August 2003 an Urgent Motion for Inhibition of RTC
Judge Asdala, asserting therein that "by failing to act swiftly on her application for
TRO as mandated under the law, [RTC Judge Asdala] has already displayed partiality and
bias against her and in favor of the [herein respondents JWT and AGL], whether or not for
`valuable’ consideration."
RTC-Branch 87, however, subsequently issued an Order dated 28 August 2003 ;From an
overall judicious examination of [Eguerra’s] allegation in support of her application for
injunction, this Court finds that issuance of an injunctive relief based on the facts
obtaining is not warranted. WHEREFORE, [Esguerra’s] application for injunction is
DENIED for lack of merit. This led Esguerra to file another Urgent Motion which sought,
among other reliefs, reconsideration of the Order dated 28 August 2003 of RTC-Branch 87
and resolution of her Motion for Inhibition. She averred in her Urgent Motion that the
denial of her application for injunctive relief was highly irregular, having been issued
without a summary hearing, in violation of the provisions of Section 4(d), Rule 58 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On 3 September 2003, Judge Asdala issued an Order
explaining why no hearing was conducted on the prayer for TRO filed by Esguerra.
(Sec. 4, Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure—see blue highlight)
In the meantime, during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 79075 before the Court of Appeals,
Judge Asdala issued an Order dated 18 September 2003, inhibiting herself from Civil
Case No. Q-03-50205 then re-raffled on 2 October 200313 to the Quezon City RTC-Branch
215.
Since Esguerra did not withdraw her Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79075, the Court of Appeals
also proceeded with the same. In its Decision dated 31 March 2005, the Court of Appeals
dismissed Esguerra’s Petition. It reasoned that Judge Asdala resolved Esguerra’s
application for injunction/TRO in Civil Case No. Q-03-50205 in the exercise of her judicial
function. Esguerra assailed in her Petition an official act of Judge Asdala, for which the
latter cannot be made answerable for damages. Esguerra wants us not only to reverse and set
aside the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, but also to hold Judge Asdala
answerable for damages in the amount of P2.2 million, plus costs of suit and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE: Whether or not the public respondent may be held liable for damages
RULLING: (No)
In sum, Esguerra asserts that she suffered damages by reason of the continued showing of the
offending commercial from the time the TRO should have been issued by Judge Asdala of RTC-
Branch 87. By Esguerra’s determination, Judge Asdala could and should have issued the TRO as
early as 1 August 2003, since summons were already served on respondents on 29 July 2003 and
Civil Case No. Q-03-50205 was raffled to the RTC-Branch 87 on 31 July 2003. Under Section
4(d) of Rule 58, Judge Asdala was obliged to already conduct a summary hearing on Esguerra’s
application by the very next day, 1 August 2003, but Judge Asdala dilly-dallied in acting on the
application too long. From 1 August 2003 to 17 November 2003, the date when JWT and AGL
received copies of the Order dated 14 November 2003 of RTC-Branch 215 granting a TRO in
Esguerra’s favor and, when the showing of the Ovaltine commercial was actually stopped, the
said commercial was already shown 110 times more.The Petition is not meritorious. The
Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Esguerra’s Petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 79075.
Judges cannot be subjected to liability – civil, criminal or administrative – for any of their
official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as they act in good faith. It is only when they act
fraudulently or corruptly, or with gross ignorance, may they be held criminally or
administratively responsible.
The records do not show that Judge Asdala was moved by bad faith, ill will or malicious
intent when she did not grant the TRO and preliminary injunction Esguerra prayed for.
Bad faith must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. It is not presumed and the party who
alleges the same has the onus of proving it. Esguerra has not, in fact, adduced any proof to show
that impropriety attended the actions of Judge Asdala. While we have earlier ruled that the
question of the propriety of the denial of the application for preliminary injunction has become
moot and academic, still let it be stated that Judge Asdala’s ruling is not manifestly unjust nor
did it constitute gross ignorance. Her reasons for denying Esguerra’s application for injunctive
relief were clearly stated in her Order of 28 August 2003. She had obviously applied therein the
basic requirements, as laid down in jurisprudence, for entitlement to injunctive relief and found
that Esguerra’s application failed to comply with the requisites. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 31 March 2005 and its Resolution dated 12 July 2005 CA-G.R. SP No. 79075 are
AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

Esguerra v. Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esguerra v. Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esguerra v. Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esguerra v.

Gonzales-Asdala, GR 168906, December 4, 2004

You might also like