Case Digest: NESTOR F. DANTES v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA

NESTOR F. DANTES v. JUDGE RAMON S. CAGUIOA

461 SCRA 236 (2005)

Where the law violated is so elementary for a judge not to know it or to act as if he does not know it constitutes gross ignorance.

Atty. Nestor Dantes (Dantes) was the counsel in a case for the declaration of nullity of a deed of sale with a right to repurchase, which was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Judge Philbert Iturralde dismissed the complaint. The court found Dantes and his clients guilty of direct contempt for willful and deliberate forum shopping.

Atty. Dantes filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge Ramon Caguioa (Caguioa) was thereafter appointed as the Presiding Judge and took over the pending case. The motion was dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The plaintiffs, through Atty. Dantes, filed a motion for clarification of said order. Respondent judge directed plaintiffs and Atty. Dantes to show cause and explain why they should not be cited in contempt of Court for using disrespectful language in their pleadings.

Atty. Dantes filed a motion requesting Judge Caguioa to specify/particularize the ―disrespectful language‖ used in the pleadings he submitted, which was denied. Judge Caguioa then ordered the arrest of Atty. Dantes. He requested respondent judge to allow him to post a bond for his provisional liberty but the same was denied. Consequently, an administrative case was filed against Judge Caguiao.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Caguioa is guilty gross ignorance of the law for not grating the petition to post bail

HELD:

Not every error bespeaks ignorance of the law, for if committed in good faith, it does not warrant administrative sanctions. To hold otherwise would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in judgment.

Good faith, however, in situations of fallible discretion inheres only within the parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be beyond possible margins of error.

Thus where the law violated is so elementary, like Rule 71 which provides the scope of a judge’s authority to punish for contempt and the procedure to be followed, for a judge not to know it or to act as if he does not know it constitutes gross ignorance.

Judge Caguioa’s denial of Atty. Dantes’ request to post a bond for his provisional liberty violated Atty. Dantes’ right to due process — his right to avail of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition pending resolution of which the execution of the judgment should have been suspended. His denial of the request betrayed his ignorance.