G.R. No. MTJ-00-1261. March 31, 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. Respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian, without any prior hearing or opportunity for the complainant to explain his absence, immediately issued an order citing him for contempt. The order directed Atty. Zarate’s arrest and incarceration for his failure to appear and for allegedly not making good on a promise to facilitate the repair of the vehicle involved in the case. Warrants were served, leading to Atty. Zarate’s arrest and a 36-hour detention in January 1996, which caused him public humiliation.
Separately, in the course of the administrative proceedings, the Supreme Court issued multiple resolutions requiring respondent Judge to file his comment on the complaint. Despite proper service of these directives, the Judge repeatedly failed to comply. The Court initially fined him for this disobedience and, due to continued non-compliance, eventually deemed him to have waived his right to file the comment, submitting the case for resolution based on the available records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge 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 patently erroneous contempt order. The Judge’s act of summarily ordering arrest and incarceration for an attorney’s tardiness, without observing the basic procedural requirements for indirect contempt, constituted a fundamental and elementary error. Under the Rules of Court, such conduct is generally considered indirect contempt, punishable only after charge and hearing, not summarily. A judge is expected to know these basic rules, and a patent violation demonstrates gross ignorance.
This liability is severely aggravated by the Judge’s callous and repeated disregard of the Supreme Court’s direct orders to file his comment. His failure to comply with multiple resolutions showed 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 defiance justified a stiffer sanction. Accordingly, the Court suspended respondent Judge for one month and fined him Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).