G.R. No. 116049 July 13, 1995
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City, ARNE STROM and GRACE REYES, respondents.

FACTS

This is a motion for reconsideration filed by respondent Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott, Jr. seeking to overturn a prior Supreme Court decision which found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The original case stemmed from the judge’s order dismissing Criminal Case No. 11529 via a motion to quash. The Second Division of the Court annulled this dismissal order, reprimanded the judge, and imposed a fine of P10,000.00. The Division held that the judge committed a glaring error by ignoring applicable laws, specifically Presidential Decree No. 1 and Letter of Instruction No. 2, which abolished the Anti-Dummy Board. The Court emphasized that judges have a mandatory duty to take judicial notice of all laws.
In his motion, Judge Gacott pleaded for reconsideration, arguing the error originated from the public prosecutor’s shortcomings. He also appealed for mercy, contending that the notation of the decision on his personal records would foreclose any future promotion and cause him lasting anguish. Furthermore, he questioned the procedural aspect, insinuating that the case, being administrative in nature involving his dismissal from service, should have been heard by the Court En Banc and not by a Division.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court’s Second Division correctly denied the motion for reconsideration and upheld the administrative penalties against Judge Gacott for gross ignorance of the law.

RULING

The Supreme Court En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court found no merit in the judge’s arguments. On the substantive issue, the Court reaffirmed that his error was not a simple mistake in judgment but amounted to gross ignorance of the law. His failure to apply or even examine PD No. 1 and LOI No. 2, despite their clear relevance, demonstrated irresponsibility and judicial incompetence. The duty to know the law is personal to the judge and cannot be shifted to the prosecution.
Regarding the procedural challenge, the Court clarified that the case did not involve his dismissal from service but the imposition of a reprimand and a fine—penalties within the authority of a Division to impose under the Constitution and existing Court resolutions. The requirement for an En Banc decision applies only to cases involving the dismissal of a judge, a penalty not meted here. The Court also noted that his widespread furnishing of copies of his motions to various government officials was unnecessary and implied an attempt to pressure the Court. The administrative penalties were deemed commensurate and final.