A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2018 (FORMERLY ADM. MATTER OCA-IPI NO. 05-2360-RTJ) - OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANTONIO I. DE CASTRO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, MANILA. PROMULGATED:

Ruling

Accordingly, respondent is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. Ordinarily, to constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order, or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties should be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, and most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. [43] In the present case, there is no finding of bad faith or malice, but this does not excuse respondent. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it, and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. [44] While judges should not be held accountable for every erroneous judgment rendered in good faith, such good faith is no defense where the basic issues are simple and the applicable legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond permissible margins of error. [45] A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. [46] Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. [47] When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. [48] There will be great faith in the administration of justice only if the party litigants believe that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of legal principles. [49] For disregarding jurisprudential pronouncements and basic legal principles, respondent should be held liable. Under Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, which took effect on October 1, 2001, gross ignorance of the law is classified as a serious charge which carries with it a penalty of either dismissal from service, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months, or a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. Since it has not been established that the infraction was motivated by malice or bad faith, and in the absence of a showing that respondent had earlier been found to have committed an administrative offense, it is just and reasonable to impose upon him the penalty of suspension of three (3) months and one (1) day. WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Antonio I. De Castro of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, City of Manila, guilty of gross ignorance of the law and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY without pay, with a WARNING that commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.