G.R. No. RTJ-92-899 October 15, 1993
Lolita Que Lim, complainant, vs. Judge Roger A. Domagas, respondent.

FACTS

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by Maria Adelinda Goze Lim against Daniel Que Lim and complainant Lolita Que Lim in Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas, acting as pairing judge, heard the case. On February 19, 1992, he issued an order requiring the Lims to appear and produce three minor children before the court. This order was not served on them as they were not home. A similar order dated February 21, 1992, was served on Lim Hua, Lolita’s husband. Allegedly due to non-compliance, a Motion to Declare Respondents in Contempt was filed on March 5, 1992. On April 27, 1992, respondent Judge Domagas summarily issued an order declaring Daniel Que Lim and Lolita Que Lim guilty of contempt, sentencing them to prison until they produced the children (not exceeding six months), and issuing a hold departure order. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing she never promised to bring the children, Daniel Que Lim was not properly served, and there was no notice and hearing on the contempt motion. The regular presiding judge, Judge Teodoro L. Hernando, found no basis for the contempt and lifted the warrants of arrest on May 8, 1992. Complainant then filed this administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency, and incompetence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for summarily declaring the respondents guilty of indirect contempt and ordering their arrest without complying with the procedural requirements of charge and hearing under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court, adopting the Office of the Court Administrator’s conclusion, found that the acts complained of constituted indirect contempt under Section 3(b) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which requires a written charge and an opportunity for the accused to be heard before punishment. Respondent Judge punished complainant and Daniel Que Lim for alleged disobedience of a court order without giving them an opportunity to rebut the charges and without proper service of summons. In doing so, he acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and exhibited a lack of cursory acquaintance with basic legal principles and procedural rules. The Court emphasized that while judges are not disciplined for mere errors of judgment, they must be conversant with fundamental legal principles. Considering the order was not enforced due to the regular judge’s intervention, the Court resolved to fine respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a warning that repetition will be met with a more severe penalty.