AM RTJ 04 1836; (July, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1836. July 14, 2004. DR. JAIME O. SEVILLA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ABRAHAM B. BORRETA, RTC, Branch 154, Pasig City, respondent.
FACTS
Dr. Jaime O. Sevilla filed an administrative complaint against Judge Abraham B. Borreta for Ignorance of the Law and Delay of Justice. The case stemmed from a civil complaint for support filed by Dr. Sevilla’s estranged wife. Upon her motion alleging Dr. Sevilla’s failure to pay accumulated support, Judge Borreta granted the issuance of a Hold-Departure Order (HDO) against Dr. Sevilla on April 3, 2002. Dr. Sevilla subsequently paid the full support amount on June 6, 2002, and immediately filed motions for reconsideration and to lift the HDO, arguing it violated Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which restricts HDOs to criminal cases. During a hearing, the judge refused to acknowledge the payment receipt and required the opposing party to comment. The HDO was eventually lifted on August 9, 2002, after the filing of another motion.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Borreta is administratively liable for (1) ignorance of the law for issuing an HDO in a civil case, and (2) undue delay in resolving the motion to lift the said HDO.
RULING
Yes, Judge Borreta is administratively liable. On the charge of ignorance of the law, the Supreme Court found that the judge clearly violated Circular No. 39-97, which explicitly states that Hold-Departure Orders may be issued only in criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. The judge’s defense—that the complainant’s failure to give support could give rise to contempt, which is in the nature of a criminal action—is erroneous. While contempt has criminal procedural aspects, a contempt proceeding under Rule 71 is a special civil action, auxiliary to the main case, and cannot be converted into a criminal case to justify an HDO. The judge’s own order cited the circular, negating any claim of lack of knowledge.
Regarding the charge of delay, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the judge failed to act with reasonable promptness. More than a month lapsed from the hearing where payment was evidenced before the HDO was lifted, despite the motion’s mootness and the professional prejudice suffered by the complainant, a physician required to travel for work. The circumstances did not warrant such delay. Consequently, Judge Borreta was found GUILTY and REPRIMANDED with a stern warning.