Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION A.M. No.

MT-01-1381 January 14, 2002 (Form r!y OCA ".P.". No. #$-42%-MTJ& FR. ROME'"TO (U"''EN, complainant, vs. JU)(E ANTON"O *. CA+ON, respon ent. ME'O, J.: In Civil Case No. !"#$% entitle , &'aran(a) *acasa, %inatuan, Suri(ao el Sur, as represente b) 'ebiana Sa)son, 'aran(a) Captain vs. Elo) +mpis, et al.,& 'aran(a) *acasa sou(ht the eviction of ,- resi ents for ille(all) an unla.full) occup)in( a !$hectare lan the) claime to o.n. In or er to prevent sai resi ents from ma/in( repairs, improvements, or construction .ithin the !$hectare lan , 0u (e +ntonio 1. Canon, Presi in( 0u (e of the 2th Municipal Circuit 3rial Court of %inatuan$ 3a(bina, Suri(ao el Sur, issue a .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction on December 52, !667. 3he resi ents alle(e l) continue to isobe) sai or er, thereb) promptin( the court to issue three separate or ers of arrest all ate September #, !662, a(ainst !! in ivi uals for irect contempt. 3hese arrest or ers became the see of the present case.
1wphi1.nt

In a s.orn letter$complaint ate September 6, !662, complainant 8r. Romelito 9uillen, parish priest of San +(ustin, 'aran(a) Poblacion, %inatuan, Suri(ao el Sur, in his capacit) as representative of the Social +ction Center of the Diocese of 3an a(, Suri(ao el Sur, char(e respon ent 0u (e +ntonio 1. Canon .ith issuin( un4ust or ers of arrest an .ith (ross i(norance of the la. relative to the e4ectment case. Complainant asserte that the or ers of arrest a(ainst the !! in ivi uals, .hose affi avits .ere inclu e in his letter$complaint, .ere efective since: !; the !! affiants, e<cept for +bon *ebeste, .ere not amon( the ,- efen ants in Civil Case No. !"#$%= 5; the or ers .ere issue .ithout an) motion to cite affiants in contempt of court an .ere issue solel) at the court>s instance= ?; the or ers .ere issue .ithout (ivin( affiants notice that the) violate the court>s or ers an i not (ive them a chance to e<plain an efen their actions= an ,; affiants merel) initiate repairs on theirnipa huts .ithout isturbin( the status quo sou(ht to be preserve b) respon ent. Complainant further conten e that respon ent acte in an arbitrar) an espotic manner in causin( the arrest of affiants .ho, as of the .ritin( of the letter$complaint, .ere still etaine at the Municipal 0ail of %inatuan. 8inall), complainant averre that respon ent is no lon(er ph)sicall) an mentall) fit to sit as presi in( 4u (e since he is almost completel) paral)@e , unable to .rite, spea/, or .al/ unai e . In his comment ate 8ebruar) 5", !66", respon ent a mitte havin( issue a .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction on December 52, !667 an the three separate or ers of arrest all ate September #, !662. %e alle(e that throu(h an affi avit file b) the *acasa 'aran(a) Council on September #, !662, he foun that efen ants 0ulie *isa)an an +bon *ebeste ha violate sai .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction, the former for havin( ma e ma4or repairs an improvements on her house, an the latter for havin( constructe a concrete or hollo.$bloc/ toilet. 3he 'aran(a) 1a(a.a s, at their e<amination follo.in( the filin( of their 4oint affi avit, reporte that +bet +ntonio, *ino Costan, El) En(alan, Eme Suan, Manin( Davenes, Celso Davenes, Ronnie Capunon(, 'ellie Morales an Carlos Munion ha also violate the aforementione or er upon the pro in( an in ucement of *isa)an an *ebeste.

Respon ent claime that these surroun in( events .ere enou(h reasons for affiants to be brou(ht to court an to sho. cause .h) the) shoul not be hel for contempt. %e conten e that since Civil Case !"#$% is covere b) the Rules on Summar) Proce ure, the summar) issuance of the .arrants b) virtue of the affi avit file b) the *acasa 'aran(a) Council an the aforementione circumstances .as 4ustifie an not un4ust, arbitrar), or espotic. Respon ent further claime that summar) hearin(s .ere hel in his chambers, an after the parties ha (iven their e<planations on .h) the) shoul not be hel in contempt, he conclu e that onl) *isa)an an *ebeste ha in ee efie the .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction an not the 6 other affiants. Respon ent subseAuentl) lifte the or ers of arrest a(ainst these 6 in ivi uals, .hile *isa)an an *ebeste .ere committe at the municipal 4ail for ? a)s as a punitive lesson for their efiance. Respon ent also alle(e that the imputation ma e b) complainant that affiants .ere all etaine as of September 6, !662 is absolutel) bereft of truth. In fact, the 6 in ivi uals .ere not even arreste espite the or ers of arrest as seen in the in orsement .arrant of arrest issue b) the .arrant officer of the Office of the Chief of Police of %inatuan$PNP an ul) confirme b) a certification from the officer$in$char(e of the same office. *astl), respon ent ispute complainant>s alle(ation that he is no lon(er ph)sicall) an mentall) fit to maintain his position, claimin( that he has been re(ularl) atten in( to his official uties in his station in %inatuan ever) Be nes a) an 3hurs a), in his sub$station at 3a(bina .hich is 52 /ilometers from %inatuan, ever) 8ri a), an as 4u (e$ esi(nate of the "th MC3C of 'isli($*in(ap at 'isli( .hich is appro<imatel) ## /ilometers from %inatuan, ever) Mon a) an 3ues a). Respon ent claime that he shuttles throu(h the poor thir $class (ravel roa .hich is tattere .ith potholes ri in( in passen(er 4eeps, or at times, even onl) on t.o$.heel motorc)cles. Respon ent ar(ue that this .ee/l) travel throu(h lon( istances cannot be ma e b) one .ho is sai to be almost completel) paral)@e . 'oth complainant an respon ent .ere reAuire b) the Court on 8ebruar) 5!, 5--- to manifest .hether the) .ere .illin( to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the plea in(s file , but no response .as ma e b) them espite proper service of notice. 8urther ar(uments .ere, therefore, eeme .aive . In the report an recommen ation ate 0anuar) !6, 5--- submitte b) then Court + ministrator +lfre o *. 'enipa)o, it .as pertinentl) observe that respon ent is liable for issuin( un4ust or ers of arrest an of (ross i(norance of the la.. Be a(ree. Respon ent is liable for issuin( un4ust or ers of arrest in that he faile to observe the proper proce ure lai o.n in the Rules of Civil Proce ure, specificall) the provisions on contempt. It must be note that affiants .ere char(e .ith direct contempt for havin( violate the .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction issue b) respon ent. 3his is contrar) to Section !, Rule 2! of the Rules of Court .hich efines irect contempt as, &misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the procee in(s before the same < < <.& Clearl), the suppose contemptuous acts of affiants fall un er the efinition of indirect contempt as e<plaine in the case of Industrial C Transport Equipment, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations ommission D5", SCR+ !,, E!66"F;, that: 3here is no Auestion that isobe ience to a la.ful .rit, process, or er, 4u (ment or comman of a court or in4unction (rante b) a court or 4u (e constitutes in irect contempt punishable un er Rule 2! of the Rules of Court.

Moreover, respon ent almost simultaneousl) issue the or ers of arrest after the members of the 'aran(a) 1a(a.a file their 4oint affi avit an (ave their oral report that the persons later isobe)e the .rit of preliminar) man ator) in4unction. 3his is in irect violation of Section ?, Rule 2! of the Rules of Civil Proce ure .hich provi es: +fter a char(e in .ritin( has been file an an opportunit) (iven to the respon ent to comment thereon .ithin such perio as ma) be fi<e b) the court an to be hear b) himself or counsel, a person (uilt) of an) of the follo.in( acts ma) be punishe for in irect contempt.... 3he recor s of the case ma/es no mention of the fact that prior to the issuance of the or ers of arrest, affiants .ere (iven the opportunit) to comment on the char(e. Respon ent trie to 4ustif) his actions b) claimin( that affiants .ere not eprive of ue process since a summar) hearin( .as con ucte in his chambers .herein the in ivi uals .ere (iven the chance to be hear on their positions an 4ustifications on .h) the) shoul not be hel in contempt. Bhat respon ent fails to reali@e is that for in irect contempt char(es, a ifferent proce ure is lai o.n b) the la.. +ccor in( to Section ,, Rule 2!: If the contempt char(es arose out of or are relate to a principal action pen in( in the court, the petition for contempt shall be oc/ete , hear an eci e separatel), unless the court in its iscretion or ers the consoli ation of the contempt char(e an the principal action for 4oint hearin( an ecision. In the instant case, no oc/etin( .as one b) respon ent nor .as a formal hearin( con ucte as reAuire . Veritabl), assumin( for the sa/e of ar(ument that a proper char(e in .ritin( accusin( the affiants .ith committin( acts constitutin( in irect contempt .as file , this fact .ill not cure the procee in(s of the taint of irre(ularit) because the recor sho.s that no previous hearin( .as affor e to petitioner. 3o restate .hat .as pointe out earlier, in cases of in irect contempt, the contemnor &ma) be punishe onl) after a char(e in .ritin( is file an an opportunit) (iven to the accuse to be hear b) himself or counsel&, an .ithout a hearin(, an or er citin( a person in contempt violates the person>s ri(ht to ue process !"alome #. a$as vs. Lerio C. asti%ador, 9.R. No.!?6",,, December !#,5---;.
1wphi1.nt

Respon ent>s actions also visibl) in icate his lac/ of sufficient (rasp of the la.. No less than the Co e of 0u icial Con uct man ates that a 4u (e shall be faithful to the la.s an maintain professional competence DCanon ?, Rule ?.-!, Co e of 0u icial Con uct;. In ee , competence is a mar/ of a (oo 4u (e. Bhen a 4u (e ispla)s an utter lac/ of familiarit) .ith the rules, he ero es the public>s confi ence in the competence of our courts. Such is (ross i(norance of the la.. %avin( accepte the e<alte position of a 4u (e, he o.es the public an the court the ut) to be proficient in the la.. Gnfamiliarit) .ith the Rules of Court is a si(n of incompetence. 'asic rules must be at the palm of his han s. + 4u (e must be acAuainte .ith le(al norms an precepts as .ell as .ith proce ural rules!&ovenal 'porto, &r. vs. &ud%e Eddie (. )onserate, +.M. No. M30$67$!!-6, +pril !7, 5--!;. 3hus, this Court has consistentl) hel that: + 4u (e is presume to /no. the la. an .hen the la. is so elementar) , not to be a.are of it constitutes (ross i(norance of the la. !*%unda+ vs. Tresvalles, ?!6 SCR+ !?, E!666F;. Veril), failure to follo. basic le(al comman s embo ie in the la. an the Rules constitutes (ross i(norance of the la., from .hich no one is e<cuse , an surel) not a 4u (e !#e *ustria vs. ,eltran, ?!? SCR+ ,,? E!666F;.

%o.ever, .ith re(ar to the Auestion of .hether respon ent cause the etention of the !! affiants as claime b) complainant, the Court fin s for respon ent .ho has in ubitabl) sho.n that 6 of !! in ivi uals .ere not even arreste . In ee , it can be plainl) seen throu(h the in orsement on the .arrant issue b) the office of the chief of police of %inatuan$PNP on September ", !662 that the 6 in ivi uals .ere not arreste . 3his fact is further bolstere b) the certification (iven b) the officer$in$ char(e of the %inatuan$PNP on 8ebruar) 5#, !66" to the effect that the 6 in ivi uals .ere never arreste or etaine . +s re(ar s respon ent>s ph)sical con ition, inasmuch as both complainant an respon ent faile to present me ical evi ence to support their respective claims, this Court fin s it unnecessar) to iscuss the same. *astl), it is .orth) to note that asi e from the instant complaint, respon ent has si< other a ministrative complaints currentl) pen in( before the Office of the Court + ministrator. B%ERE8ORE, 0u (e +ntonio 1. Canon is hereb) foun (uilt) of issuin( un4ust or ers an of (ross i(norance of the la.. %e is or ere to pa) a fine in the amount of 3en 3housan Pesos DP!-,---.--; .ith a stern .arnin( that a repetition of the same or similar act .oul be ealt .ith more severel).
1wphi1.nt

SO OR)ERE). -itu%, (an%aniban, "andoval./utierre0, and arpio, &&., concur.