SC fines ex-judge for ignorance of law, misconduct

The Supreme Court has found a former judge of a Davao court guilty for failure to cease and desist from a case despite being ordered to do so by the Court of Appeals in October 2009.

In an 18-page resolution promulgated on March 28, the Supreme Court en banc found the former judge of the Davao City Regional Trial Court Branch 14 guilty of two counts of ignorance of the law, and one count of gross misconduct.

Due to this, he was ordered to pay a fine of P700,000 within a period not exceeding three months from the date of the resolution’s promulgation. Should the fine remain unpaid, the Court said the amount will be deducted from his accrued leave credits.

“Time and time again, we have held that ‘judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less,” the Court said.

“When inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and elemental rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent and underserving of the position and the prestigious title he [or she] holds or he [or she] is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of authority,” it added.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by a petroleum company against the judge after he refused to heed an injunction order because he believed that it has “no force and effect” since it was signed by only two members of the Court of Appeals division as the other members were on leave.

The firm also argued that the judge’s issuance of warrants of arrest against bank officials for their reluctance to release its garnished funds constitutes abuse of authority.

“In this case, Judge’s unceremonious issuance of a warrant of arrest pursuant to a summary citation for indirect contempt is evidently marred with grave abuse of judicial authority and gross ignorance of the law,” it said.

According to the Court, the judge failed to abide by the judicial norm that “judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial.”—LDF, GMA Integrated News