G.R. No. RTJ-11-2666. February 15, 2011.
Josephine Jazmines Tan, Complainant, vs. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Catbalogan, Samar, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Josephine Jazmines Tan, a co-plaintiff in Civil Case No. 7681 and co-accused in Criminal Case No. 6536, filed a verified complaint charging respondent Judge Sibanah E. Usman with abuse of power, conduct unbecoming a judicial officer, mental dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and bribery/corruption. The charges stemmed from the judge’s handling of a Motion for Inhibition filed by the complainant and her co-parties against him. Attached to the motion was complainant’s affidavit alleging, among other things, that based on information from court employees, a representative of the opposing party had bragged about disbursing a substantial sum of money to the respondent judge to ensure a favorable outcome.
During the hearing on the Motion for Inhibition, the respondent judge allegedly became emotional, coerced the complainant to testify without counsel, and demanded a public apology. He then issued an Order dated August 28, 2009, citing complainant for Direct Contempt of Court. The order directed her detention at the Samar Provincial Jail “until she divulges the name of the informant/employee of the Court or publicly apologize to the employees of the Court, the Presiding Judge and the Executive Judge, but the period of detention shall not exceed more than thirty (30) days.” Complainant was detained from August 28, 2009, until September 16, 2009, or for 19 days.
In his defense, respondent judge explained that during the hearing, the complainant failed to identify any court employee as her informant when asked. He claimed that the private prosecutor and opposing counsel moved for her to be cited for contempt, and her own lawyer offered no comment. He argued that his order was issued in his official capacity and the proper remedy was a motion for reconsideration or appeal, not an administrative case. He stated that the 30-day maximum period was to give her a wider opportunity to apologize or divulge the name.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Sibanah E. Usman is administratively liable for the charges against him, particularly for Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Abuse of Authority in relation to his issuance of the Direct Contempt Order.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The charges for Conduct Unbecoming a Judicial Officer, Mental Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order, and Bribery/Corruption were dismissed for lack of merit.
The Court, adopting the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), held that respondent judge committed a glaring error in his contempt order, demonstrating gross ignorance of a basic rule. Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court explicitly limits the penalty for direct contempt to a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten days, or both. The respondent judge’s order imposing a detention period of up to thirty days flagrantly violated this clear rule. His error was compounded by the fact that the complainant was actually imprisoned for 19 days, far exceeding the 10-day statutory limit.
Furthermore, the respondent judge failed to indicate in the order the amount of a bond for the complainant to post for her provisional liberty, as required under Section 2, Rule 71. This omission rendered nugatory her option to stay the execution of the judgment and caused her immediate detention, effectively making the contempt order immediately executory contrary to the rules.
The Court emphasized that a judge is expected to have a mastery of the law, especially fundamental rules of procedure. The respondent’s violation of the clear and simple provisions on direct contempt constituted gross ignorance of the law. His previous record of administrative sanctions, as listed by the OCA, was also noted. Accordingly, the Court imposed a FINE of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00) upon respondent Judge Sibanah E. Usman, payable within fifteen days from finality of the resolution.