THIRD DIVISION
|
SPOUSES
ARLEEN and LORNA OLIVEROS, Complainants, - versus - HONORABLE DIONISIO C.
SISON, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 74, Antipolo City, Respondent. |
|
A.M.
No. RTJ-07-2050
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
07-2563-RTJ) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 14,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration filed by Judge Dionisio C. Sison seeking the reversal
of our Decision[1] dated P10,000.00.
We held therein that Judge Sison failed to abide by the requirements under the
Revised Rules on Civil Procedure in citing herein complainants, spouses Arleen
and Lorna Oliveros, for indirect contempt, thus:
As to the order citing complainants for
indirect contempt, while we are disposed to accept Judge Sison’s good faith in
issuing the same, we have already held in the past, that good faith in
situations of fallible discretion inheres only within the parameters of
tolerable misjudgment and does not apply where the issues are so simple and the
applicable legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond permissible
margins of error. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes
gross ignorance of the law.
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules on Civil
Procedure explicitly sets out the requirements for instituting a complaint for
indirect contempt. Section 4 thereof states:
SEC. 4. How
proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated
motu proprio by the court against
which the contempt was committed by an order or any formal charge requiring the
respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In
all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified
petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for
filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the
contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall
be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion
orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for
joint hearing and decision. (emphasis
supplied)
This
provision is couched in plain and simple language. The procedure prescribed
therein is clear and unmistakable. The defendants’ motion obviously does not
conform with this Rule; accordingly, it should not have been entertained and
the warrant of arrest should never have been issued. The argument that filing
the contempt charge as a separate and independent petition would “favor
multiplicity of suits” is too lame an excuse for violating the Rules.
Moreover,
complainants should have been given the opportunity to be heard and to defend
themselves against the contempt charge, involving as it does such a dire
consequence as imprisonment for six months. The Court notes that the motion to
cite complainants in indirect contempt was set for hearing on November 13,
2006, that complainants did not appear (because they allegedly never received a
copy of the motion nor any notice of hearing), that the matter was deemed
submitted for resolution, and that on the same day an Order granting the motion
and directing the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the complainants was
issued. The undue haste in disposing of this procedurally infirm motion
deprived complainants of one of man’s most
fundamental rights, the right to be heard.
These
circumstances amply overcome the presumption of good faith that Judge Sison
enjoys in his favor.
Under the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of
the law or procedure constitutes a serious charge. However, we find the OCA’s
recommendation of a P10,000 fine appropriate.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find
respondent Judge Dionisio C. Sison GUILTY
of gross ignorance of the law and impose on him a FINE of P10,000.00. (citations omitted)[2]
In Judge Sison’s Motion for Partial
Reconsideration,[3] he
maintains that it is his honest opinion and belief that the contempt order he
issued substantially complied with the first paragraph of Section 4, Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court.[4] He also insists
that he issued the order in good faith and with no ill motive. He treated the
Motion to Cite for Contempt as the proper notice or information to the court
for it to act on the alleged act of disregard or disrespect for a lawful court
order. He did not issue a show-cause order because the Motion to Cite for
Contempt already contained a notice of hearing. The complainants, Judge Sison
insists, were informed of the hearing but failed to appear. He said that
complainants’ counsel was personally served a copy of the Motion – as evidenced
by the stamp “Received (Buencamino Law Office)” – on the last page of said
Motion.
He also explains that since Rule 71
states that contempt charges may be brought by the court motu proprio, his understanding was that the second paragraph of
Section 4, Rule 71[5] need not
be resorted to anymore.
Judge Sison also alleges that
complainants failed to inform this Court of a Petition for Certiorari filed by the latter with the CA, docketed as CA- G.R. SP
No. 97892,[6]
wherein they questioned the contempt order he issued. The CA issued a
Resolution dated
Judge Sison also takes exception to
the Court’s finding of “undue haste” in issuing the subject contempt order and
warrant of arrest. He argues that he issued the order promptly because
defendant spouses Mallett informed the court that they were being threatened by
Arleen Oliveros, allegedly a convicted killer under parole. He also alleges
that he issued the order because John Mallett is an American citizen and cases
affecting foreigners are to be given preference and resolved with dispatch.
Meanwhile, this Court noted in its P10,000.00[8]
fine.
On the other hand, complainants, in
their Comment,[9] allege
that they filed the administrative case with this Court on
Complainants also allege that they
were not aware that they had to inform the Court of the subsequent filing of
the Petition for Certiorari. They
claim that they did not know that Judge Sison had filed an Answer in the administrative
case because they never received any of the pleadings the latter filed with
this Court, including the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
On
Likewise, the spouses Oliveros informed
the Court that complainant Arleen Oliveros had fully served the sentence
(six-month imprisonment) imposed for the indirect contempt charge.[12]
In his Reply, Judge Sison points out
that the complainants’ Comment is a mere rehash of the arguments raised in the complaint.
He maintains that complainants were given an opportunity to be heard on the
motion to cite them in contempt but that they failed to appear on the hearing
date. He also reiterates that he issued the Order citing complainants in
contempt in good faith and the latter have failed to show otherwise.
After reviewing the motion filed by
Judge Sison, we find the same devoid of merit. The issues raised have already
been passed upon and judiciously
resolved by this Court in its
However, we cannot as yet write finis to this case.
Complainants themselves admitted that
they failed to inform this Court of the petition they filed before the CA
within five days after they “learn[ed] that the same or similar action or claim
has been filed or is pending,” as provided by the Rules,[13]
or in this case, after they themselves filed the latter case. They, however,
argue that they were not aware of such requirement. While that may have been
true, their argument becomes untenable when seen in the light of their
subsequent actions. The Verification/Certification of the Petition for Certiorari before the CA clearly shows
that both complainants signed the same. Thus, they are presumed to have read
its contents, or since they are supposedly assisted by counsel, that the latter
explained the contents thereof. This should have already made them aware of the
requirement to inform the Court of the filing of the case before the CA
considering that in the latter case, they are praying for the nullification of
the very same Order for which they were seeking administrative sanctions
against respondent Judge before this Court. Yet even in the Petition for Review
itself, they failed to disclose that they had already filed an administrative
case against Judge Sison before this Court arising from the same order they
were questioning therein.[14] Thus,
there appears a real possibility that the pernicious effect sought to be
prevented by the rules requiring the Certification against Forum Shopping would
arise. Accordingly, the complainants could be held liable for contempt of this
Court.
WHEREFORE, the
foregoing premises considered, the MOTION
FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION is DENIED
for lack of merit. On the other hand, complainant-spouses ARLEEN and LORNA OLIVEROS are hereby directed to SHOW CAUSE, within TEN (10) DAYS from receipt of this Resolution, why they should not
be cited for contempt for violation of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules
on Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 45-53.
[2]
[3]
[4] Proceedings
for indirect contempt may be initiated motu
proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order
or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt.
[5] In all other cases, charges for
indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein,
and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings
for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of
or are related to a principal action pending in court, the petition for
contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and
decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation
of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
[6] Annex “1,” Comment on the Motion
for Partial Reconsideration, rollo, pp.
108-129.
[7] Rollo, p. 81.
[8] O.R. No. 7067451 dated
[9] Rollo, pp. 99-107.
[10] Annex “C,” Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, id. at 63-64.
[11] Annex “2,” Comment on the Motion for
Partial Reconsideration, id. at 153-155.
[12] Certificate of Discharge (Annex
“3”), Comment on the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, id. at 156-157.
[13] SEC.
5. Certification against forum shopping. —The plaintiff or principal
party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading
asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and
simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action
or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or
claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that
fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid
complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements
shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory
pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice,
unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission, of a
false certification or non-compliance
with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of
court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal
actions. If the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and
deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with
prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause for
administrative sanctions. (emphasis supplied)
[14] Rollo,
p. 129.