G.R. No. MTJ-02-1433; February 21, 2003
Tomas R. Leonidas, petitioner, vs. Francisco G. Supnet, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Tomas R. Leonidas, counsel for Union Bank, filed a collection and replevin case against the Tamondong spouses in the Pasay MTC, presided by respondent Judge Francisco G. Supnet. The spouses moved to dismiss the case, alleging forum shopping because a prior case involving the same loan had been dismissed by the Pasay RTC. In an Order dated May 9, 2000, the MTC dismissed the case, ordered the return of the replevied vehicle, and cited Union Bank, its collection officer, and petitioner in contempt for forum shopping, imposing a fine. A second contempt order was later issued for failure to return the vehicle.
Petitioner filed this administrative case, charging respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to justice. He argued that the May 9 Order directed only Union Bank, not him personally, to return the vehicle. He also contended that the contempt charge was procedurally infirm for non-compliance with Rule 71, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, which requires that a charge for indirect contempt must be by a verified petition or a formal order requiring the respondent to show cause.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing the contempt orders against petitioner.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court found the contempt orders legally baseless. First, the certification against forum shopping was signed by the bank’s collection officer, not by petitioner as counsel. A lawyer cannot be held in contempt for a certification he did not sign. Second, and more critically, the procedure for indirect contempt was blatantly disregarded. Under Rule 71, Section 4, charges for indirect contempt, such as alleged forum shopping or disobedience of a court order, must be initiated by a verified petition or the court must issue a formal order requiring the person to show cause. The motions filed by the spouses were unverified and did not constitute the proper initiatory pleading. By issuing the contempt orders based on these defective motions, respondent judge demonstrated a fundamental lack of familiarity with basic procedural rules. This failure constitutes gross ignorance of the law, which is a serious charge warranting administrative sanction. The Court emphasized that judges must be proficient in the law to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.