G.R. No. RTJ-09-2196; April 7, 2010
MARIA PANCHO, DAVID GAYOTIN, LORETO GRAN AND MARINA GRAN, Complainants, vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. with grave abuse of authority, ignorance of the law, and grave oppression. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s Order dated July 13, 2000, which found complainants guilty of indirect contempt for violating an injunctive order issued by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Himamaylan. The respondent judge sentenced them to four months of imprisonment and issued warrants for their arrest.
Complainants specifically alleged that the judge violated Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court by giving due course to an unverified motion for contempt. They further contended he violated Section 7 of the same Rule by imposing a penalty of four months imprisonment, which they argued was excessive. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated October 31, 2006, affirmed the finding of contempt but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for imposing an incorrect penalty for indirect contempt.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The applicable law, Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, is unequivocal. It states that if the contempt is committed against a lower court, such as an MTC, the imposable penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one month or a fine not exceeding Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), or both.
The Court emphasized that the provision is plain and simple. Since the violated injunctive order was issued by the MTC, the maximum imposable imprisonment was only one month, not the four months imposed by the respondent. When a law or rule is so elementary, a judge’s failure to know it or to act as if he does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. This liability attaches even in the absence of any showing of malice or bad faith on the part of the judge.
As the respondent had already retired and subsequently died, the sanctions of dismissal or suspension were no longer viable. Following Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which classifies gross ignorance as a serious charge punishable by, among others, a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). This amount was ordered to be deducted from the retirement benefits withheld from the deceased judge.