A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2050 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-2563-RTJ) - SPOUSES ARLEEN AND LORNA OLIVEROS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HONORABLE DIONISIO C. SISON, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 74, ANTIPOLO CITY.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

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 or 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. [22] However, we find the OCA's recommendation of a P10,000.00 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. SO ORDERED.