Well-settled is the rule that an injunction cannot be issued to transfer possession or control of a property to another when the legal title is in dispute between the parties and the legal title has not been clearly established.2 In this case, respondent judge evidently disregarded this established doctrine applied in numerous cases when it granted the preliminary injunction in favor of Pagelswhose legal title is disputed. When the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.3 Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence.4
Respondent judge should have been more cautious in issuing writs of preliminary injunctions because as consistently held these writs are strong arms of equity which must be issued with great deliberation.”5 In Fortune Life Insurance Co., Inc. v. Luczon,6 the Court held the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he failed to conduct a hearing prior to issuance of an injunction in violation of the Rules of Court. It was further emphasized inZuño v. Cabredo,7 where it was held that the act of respondent in issuing the TRO to enjoin the Bureau of Customs and its officials from detaining the subject shipment amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
