G.R. No. RTJ-94-1160. April 10, 1995.
ALEXANDER VITO, complainant, vs. JUDGE TEOFILO BUSLON, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alexander Vito was the defendant in a civil case for support. Respondent Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr., as acting presiding judge, rendered a decision without first resolving a pending motion for reconsideration. After Vito perfected his appeal, the plaintiffs filed a motion to cite him for contempt for alleged non-payment of support pendente lite. Respondent granted this motion, finding Vito guilty of contempt and ordering his arrest without bail, despite Vito’s opposition arguing the court had lost jurisdiction due to the perfected appeal and that the motion was unverified. Subsequently, respondent issued a hold departure order based on a motion that was filed on August 31, 1993, but the order was dated August 30, 1993, antedating its issuance. Complainant also alleged he was not given notice or opportunity to oppose this motion. After these incidents, respondent acted as a wedding sponsor for the daughter of one of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr. is administratively liable for ignorance of the law, rendering unjust interlocutory orders, and breach of judicial ethics.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. On the charge of ignorance of the law, the Court found respondent negligent. While he correctly noted that a trial court retains limited jurisdiction in support cases post-appeal for protective orders, his act of finding Vito guilty of contempt and ordering his arrest without bail after the appeal was perfected, and based on an unverified motion, constituted a gross misapplication of procedural rules. A judge’s error may not always be disciplinary, but negligence in adjudicatory functions is sanctionable.
Regarding the unjust interlocutory orders, the Court found the explanation for the antedated hold order—a clerical error by a stenographer—satisfactory. However, respondent violated procedural due process by issuing the hold departure order without notice to the complainant. The Rules require notice for motions, and no urgency was shown to justify an ex-parte issuance, depriving Vito of his right to be heard.
Finally, respondent breached judicial ethics by acting as a wedding sponsor for a party’s relative while the case was still within the court’s system, having recently presided over it. This act violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge’s behavior must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. A judge must avoid any appearance of impropriety.
The Court fined respondent Judge Teofilo Buslon, Jr. Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned that a repetition would incur a more severe penalty.