A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050. March 14, 2008. SPOUSES ARLEEN and LORNA OLIVEROS, Complainants, vs. HONORABLE DIONISIO C. SISON, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City, Respondent.
FACTS

This is a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Judge Dionisio C. Sison, seeking to reverse a prior Supreme Court Decision dated June 27, 2007, which found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and imposed a fine of ₱10,000.00. The administrative complaint stemmed from Judge Sison’s issuance of an order citing the complainants, Spouses Oliveros, for indirect contempt and ordering their arrest. The contempt charge was based on a motion filed by the opposing party in a pending civil case, not by a verified petition as required by the Rules. The order was issued on the same day the motion was heard, despite the complainants’ non-appearance, which they attributed to non-receipt of the motion and notice.
In his motion for reconsideration, Judge Sison argued his actions constituted substantial compliance and were done in good faith. He contended that since a court may initiate contempt proceedings motu proprio, the filing of a separate verified petition was unnecessary. He also justified the prompt issuance of the order by citing alleged threats from a complainant and the involvement of a foreign national in the case.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Sison’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration merits the reversal of his administrative liability for Gross Ignorance of the Law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration and AFFIRMED the finding of guilt. The Court reiterated that the procedure for indirect contempt under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is clear and mandatory. When the charge is initiated by a party, it must be commenced by a verified petition that complies with the rules for initiatory pleadings and should be docketed separately from the principal action. Judge Sison’s acceptance of a mere motion, which lacked the requisite verification and was not docketed independently, constituted a blatant disregard of this elementary rule.
The Court rejected the defense of good faith and substantial compliance. The legal principle involved is fundamental, and ignorance of such a basic procedural rule is inexcusable and constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The Court also found unpersuasive the justifications of alleged threats and the involvement of a foreign party, as these do not excuse procedural shortcuts that violate a party’s fundamental right to be heard. The undue haste in issuing the arrest order on the same day, without ensuring proper service and opportunity for defense, further underscored the procedural infirmity. The penalty of a ₱10,000.00 fine was deemed appropriate.