G.R. No. RTJ-12-2335. March 18, 2013
ANNA LIZA VALMORES-SALINAS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Anna Liza Valmores-Salinas filed an administrative complaint against Judge Crisologo S. Bitas for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Conduct Unbecoming a Judge, Bias, Manifest Partiality, and Impropriety. The complaint arose from two cases: (1) TPO Case No. 2011-04-04, a Violence Against Women and their Children (VAWC) case with a Petition for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) filed by complainant against her husband Roy Salinas, which respondent Judge denied; and (2) Civil Case No. 2011-08-60, a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by Roy Salinas, where respondent Judge issued an Order appointing Mervyn Añover as administrator of the spouses’ community properties after a chamber conference. Complainant alleged she did not agree to the appointment and that her counsel had reservations, but the appointment was made. She and her counsel were not furnished copies of the Order and Letter of Administration. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, to which Roy Salinas’ counsel filed a comment with a motion to cite complainant for indirect contempt for disallowing the administrator to manage a property. In an Order dated December 14, 2011, respondent Judge summarily held complainant in contempt of court for violating the court’s order, sentencing her to 5-day imprisonment. Complainant argued this Order violated Section 4, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, as there was no formal charge or opportunity to show cause. Respondent Judge defended his actions as necessary to preserve the spouses’ properties and alleged the complaint was harassive.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure for summarily holding complainant in indirect contempt without complying with procedural requisites under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure. The Supreme Court sustained the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings but reduced the recommended fine. The Court clarified that errors in judicial functions, such as the denial of the TPO petition or the appointment of an administrator, are judicial matters to be corrected through judicial remedies, not administrative proceedings, unless there is fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. However, respondent Judge’s summary contempt order was procedurally flawed. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 require that for indirect contempt, there must be: (1) an order or formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause; (2) an opportunity to comment; (3) a hearing; and (4) a determination of guilt after investigation. Here, respondent Judge issued the contempt order without a verified petition, without requiring complainant to show cause, and without a hearing, disregarding basic procedural safeguards. This obstinate disregard of established rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law or procedure. Considering it was respondent Judge’s first offense and the common confusion between direct and indirect contempt procedures, the Court reduced the fine from ₱21,000.00 to ₱10,000.00. Respondent Judge was found GUILTY of GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR PROCEDURE, FINED ₱10,000.00, and given a STERN WARNING against repetition.