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.R E S O L U T I O N - 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 nor 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 mans 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. However, we find the OCAs recommendation of a P10,000 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. (citations omitted) [2] In Judge Sisons Motion for Partial Reconsideration, [3] he maintains that it is his honest opinion and belief that the contempt order he issued substantially complied with the first paragraph of Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. [4] He also insists that he issued the order in good faith and with no ill motive. He treated the Motion to Cite for Contempt as the proper notice or information to the court for it to act on the alleged act of disregard or disrespect for a lawful court order. He did not issue a show-cause order because the Motion to Cite for Contempt already contained a notice of hearing. The complainants, Judge Sison insists, were informed of the hearing but failed to appear. He said that complainants counsel was personally served a copy of the Motion as evidenced by the stamp Received (Buencamino Law Office) on the last page of said Motion. He also explains that since Rule 71 states that contempt charges may be brought by the court motu proprio, his understanding was that the second paragraph of Section 4, Rule 71 [5] need not be resorted to anymore. Judge Sison also alleges that complainants failed to inform this Court of a Petition for Certiorari filed by the latter with the CA, docketed as CA- G.R. SP No. 97892, [6] wherein they questioned the contempt order he issued. The CA issued a Resolution dated February 26, 2007 dismissing the petition since the proper mode of reviewing a contempt charge is appeal and not a petition for certior