A.M. No. MTJ-19-1928 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 17-2910-MTJ] - JULIANA P. AREVALO, SOUVEN P. AREVALO AND OSCAR P. AREVALO, JR. COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. ELI C. POSUGAC, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, SIRUMA, CAMARINES SUR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, be FINED in the amount of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00), with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely. [20] (Emphasis in the original) The Court's Ruling The Court agrees with the OCA's finding that respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The rules of procedure that the magistrate breached were elementary. The effects of his errors on the complainants were serious, especially as the rules that were disregarded were safeguards for the constitutional rights of the complainants to due process, speedy disposition of cases and protection of liberty. In Department of Justice v. Judge Mislang , [21] the Court held: Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. A judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and jurisprudence. Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, the same applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. x x x Where the law is straightforward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. A judge is presumed to have acted with regularity and good faith in the performance of judicial functions. But a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this presumption and subjects the magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions. For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive. 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. Thus, unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules must be at the palm of his hand. When a judge displays utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he betrays the confidence of the public in the courts. Ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judges owe it to the public to be knowledgeable, hence, they are expected to have more than just a modicum of acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules; they must know them by heart. When the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basis and elemental rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the prestigious title he holds or he is too vicious