Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050 March 14, 2008
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2563-RTJ)
SPOUSES ARLEEN and LORNA OLIVEROS, Complainants,
vs.
HONORABLE DIONISIO C. SISON, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Judge Dionisio C. Sison seeking the reversal of our Decision1 dated June 27, 2007 finding him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and for which he was fined ₱10,000.00. We held therein that Judge Sison failed to abide by the requirements under the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure in citing herein complainants, spouses Arleen and Lorna Oliveros, for indirect contempt, thus:
As to the order citing complainants for indirect contempt, while we are disposed to accept Judge Sison’s good faith in issuing the same, we have already held in the past, that good faith in situations of fallible discretion inheres only within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment and does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond permissible margins of error. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure explicitly sets out the requirements for instituting a complaint for indirect contempt. Section 4 thereof states:
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. (emphasis supplied)
This provision is couched in plain and simple language. The procedure prescribed therein is clear and unmistakable. The defendants’ motion obviously does not conform with this Rule; accordingly, it should not have been entertained and the warrant of arrest should never have been issued. The argument that filing the contempt charge as a separate and independent petition would "favor multiplicity of suits" is too lame an excuse for violating the Rules.
Moreover, complainants should have been given the opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves against the contempt charge, involving as it does such a dire consequence as imprisonment for six months. The Court notes that the motion to cite complainants in indirect contempt was set for hearing on November 13, 2006, that complainants did not appear (because they allegedly never received a copy of the motion nor any notice of hearing), that the matter was deemed submitted for resolution, and that on the same day an Order granting the motion and directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the complainants was issued. The undue haste in disposing of this procedurally infirm motion deprived complainants of one of man’s most fundamental rights, the right to be heard.
These circumstances amply overcome the presumption of good faith that Judge Sison enjoys in his favor.
Under the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law or procedure constitutes a serious charge. However, we find the OCA’s recommendation of a ₱10,000 fine appropriate.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find respondent Judge Dionisio C. Sison GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and impose on him a FINE of ₱10,000.00. (citations omitted)2
In Judge Sison’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration,3 he maintains that it is his honest opinion and belief that the contempt order he issued substantially complied with the first paragraph of Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.4 He also insists that he issued the order in good faith and with no ill motive. He treated the Motion to Cite for Contempt as the proper notice or information to the court for it to act on the alleged act of disregard or disrespect for a lawful court order. He did not issue a show-cause order because the Motion to Cite for Contempt already contained a notice of hearing. The complainants, Judge Sison insists, were informed of the hearing but failed to appear. He said that complainants’ counsel was personally served a copy of the Motion – as evidenced by the stamp "Received (Buencamino Law Office)" – on the last page of said Motion.
He also explains that since Rule 71 states that contempt charges may be brought by the court motu proprio, his understanding was that the second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 715 need not be resorted to anymore.
Judge Sison also alleges that complainants failed to inform this Court of a Petition for Certiorari filed by the latter with the CA, docketed as CA- G.R. SP No. 97892,6 wherein they questioned the contempt order he issued. The CA issued a Resolution dated February 26, 2007 dismissing the petition since the proper mode of reviewing a contempt charge is appeal and not a petition for certiorari. Complainants then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution.
Judge Sison also takes exception to the Court’s finding of "undue haste" in issuing the subject contempt order and warrant of arrest. He argues that he issued the order promptly because defendant spouses Mallett informed the court that they were being threatened by Arleen Oliveros, allegedly a convicted killer under parole. He also alleges that he issued the order because John Mallett is an American citizen and cases affecting foreigners are to be given preference and resolved with dispatch.
Meanwhile, this Court noted in its September 24, 2007 Resolution7 that Judge Sison had paid the ₱10,000.008 fine.
On the other hand, complainants, in their Comment,9 allege that they filed the administrative case with this Court on November 15, 2006, or before they filed the Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP. No. 97892) with the CA on February 13, 2007. They further allege that the Petition is the product of Judge Sison’s continuous insensitivity resulting in the issuance of the contempt order, the denial of their motion to reconsider the same, and his issuance of a warrant against other persons claiming rights under complainants. The Petition for Certiorari seeks the nullification of the Order citing complainants in indirect contempt, the Order denying their motion for reconsideration, and the warrant for their arrest.
Complainants also allege that they were not aware that they had to inform the Court of the subsequent filing of the Petition for Certiorari. They claim that they did not know that Judge Sison had filed an Answer in the administrative case because they never received any of the pleadings the latter filed with this Court, including the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
On February 26, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution10 dismissing complainants’ petition since the proper mode of reviewing a contempt charge is appeal and not a petition for certiorari. Complainants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution, which the CA granted in a Resolution11 dated August 6, 2007. Thus, the CA set aside its February 26, 2007 Resolution and ordered the respondents to Comment on the Petition for Certiorari.1avvphi1
Likewise, the spouses Oliveros informed the Court that complainant Arleen Oliveros had fully served the sentence (six-month imprisonment) imposed for the indirect contempt charge.12
In his Reply, Judge Sison points out that the complainants’ Comment is a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the complaint. He maintains that complainants were given an opportunity to be heard on the motion to cite them in contempt but that they failed to appear on the hearing date. He also reiterates that he issued the Order citing complainants in contempt in good faith and the latter have failed to show otherwise.
After reviewing the motion filed by Judge Sison, we find the same devoid of merit. The issues raised have already been passed upon and judiciously resolved by this Court in its June 27, 2007 Decision. Judge Sison does not raise any substantial argument that would merit the modification of our decision.
However, we cannot as yet write finis to this case.
Complainants themselves admitted that they failed to inform this Court of the petition they filed before the CA within five days after they "learn[ed] that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending," as provided by the Rules,13 or in this case, after they themselves filed the latter case. They, however, argue that they were not aware of such requirement. While that may have been true, their argument becomes untenable when seen in the light of their subsequent actions. The Verification/Certification of the Petition for Certiorari before the CA clearly shows that both complainants signed the same. Thus, they are presumed to have read its contents, or since they are supposedly assisted by counsel, that the latter explained the contents thereof. This should have already made them aware of the requirement to inform the Court of the filing of the case before the CA considering that in the latter case, they are praying for the nullification of the very same Order for which they were seeking administrative sanctions against respondent Judge before this Court. Yet even in the Petition for Review itself, they failed to disclose that they had already filed an administrative case against Judge Sison before this Court arising from the same order they were questioning therein.14 Thus, there appears a real possibility that the pernicious effect sought to be prevented by the rules requiring the Certification against Forum Shopping would arise. Accordingly, the complainants could be held liable for contempt of this Court.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION is DENIED for lack of merit. On the other hand, complainant-spouses ARLEEN and LORNA OLIVEROS are hereby directed to SHOW CAUSE, within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not be cited for contempt for violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 45-53.
2 Id. at 51-52.
3 Id. at 54-57.
4 Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
5 In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
6 Annex "1," Comment on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, rollo, pp. 108-129.
7 Rollo, p. 81.
8 O.R. No. 7067451 dated August 21, 2007, id. at 80.
9 Rollo, pp. 99-107.
10 Annex "C," Motion for Partial Reconsideration, id. at 63-64.
11 Annex "2," Comment on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, id. at 153-155.
12 Certificate of Discharge (Annex "3"), Comment on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, id. at 156-157.
13 SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. —The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission, of a false certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (emphasis supplied)
14 Rollo, p. 129.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
