AM MTJ 00 1261; (April, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1261. April 3, 2000. NOE CANGCO ZARATE, complainant, vs. Judge ISAURO M. BALDERIAN, Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Carmona-Gen. Mariano Alvarez, Cavite, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Noe Cangco Zarate, counsel for the accused in a criminal case for damage to property, failed to appear on time for a scheduled hearing on December 1, 1995. Without any hearing or prior explanation from the counsel, respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian immediately issued an order citing Atty. Zarate in contempt, ordering his arrest and incarceration for his failure to appear and for allegedly not making good on a promise to facilitate the repair of the damaged vehicle subject of the case. Warrants were served, leading to Atty. Zarate’s arrest and a 36-hour detention in January 1996.
Separately, in the course of the administrative proceedings, the Supreme Court issued multiple resolutions requiring Judge Balderian to file his comment on the complaint. He repeatedly failed to comply despite proper service of the orders. The Court fined him for this disobedience, which he also ignored.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and serious misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a manifestly erroneous contempt order. The act of a counsel failing to appear on time constitutes indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which requires a written charge and an opportunity for the accused to be heard before punishment. Judge Balderian’s summary order of arrest and incarceration, without observing these basic procedural safeguards, was a patent and elementary error. A judge is expected to know such fundamental rules of procedure.
This liability is severely aggravated by Judge Balderian’s callous disregard of the Supreme Court’s directives. His repeated failure to file the required comment and to pay the imposed fine demonstrated disrespect for judicial authority and the administrative processes of the Court. While a similar act of gross ignorance might otherwise warrant a lighter penalty, the aggravating circumstance of defying the Court’s orders justified a stiffer sanction. Accordingly, the Court suspended Judge Balderian for one month and fined him Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).