G.R. No. 131889 - Gochan vs. Young

Complainant: Frank Lawrence A. CariAo, also known as Frankie CariAo, charged Judge Jonathan S. Biteng with gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence.
Case Context: The allegations arose in connection with Civil Case No. 624 entitled “The President of the Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Inc. vs. Otilla A. Legaspi” involving an unlawful detainer issue.
Complainant’s Status: CariAo claimed he is the appointed administrator of his ancestral home in Candon, Ilocos Sur and was not a party in the original case.

The first writ of execution, dated August 14, 1997, was later amended to include all individuals staying in the premises under defendant Otilla Legaspi’s authority.
A subsequent amended writ dated September 23, 1997, markedly different from the initial writ, directed the sheriff to eject Legaspi and all others, an act allegedly intended to favor the complainant unduly and “railroad” the original proceedings.
The amended order, however, led to CariAo’s citation, arrest, and detention for indirect contempt, despite his non-involvement in the underlying case.

Judge Biteng issued an order dated February 6, 1997 directing the arrest of CariAo for indirect contempt, a decision CariAo later challenged.
In his Answer, Judge Biteng admitted issuing the arrest order, affirming that he acted honestly and lawfully in implementing the writ of execution, and he maintained that no harm was caused since the order was not executed by the local law enforcement due to CariAo’s absence.
The case was referred to Executive Judge Gabino B. Balbin, Jr. for an evaluation report and recommendation.

Judge Balbin recommended dismissal of the complaint on the ground that Judge Biteng had already retired.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disagreed with the dismissal, drawing on a line of jurisprudence that maintains administrative cases against judges do not become moot merely because the respondent has retired or resigned.
Relevant to this issue was the fact that on August 18, 1998, Judge Biteng’s application for optional retirement was approved with a directive to withhold P25,000.00 from his retirement benefits pending the outcome of the complaint.

The OCA noted a previous adverse administrative ruling in Administrative Matter No. MTJ-95-1018 (Sule vs. Biteng, 243 SCRA 524), where Judge Biteng was fined P20,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law and incompetence and was warned against repeating the offense.
The past disciplinary measure underscored concerns regarding repeated instances of judicial ignorance and procedural failures.

The OCA found that Judge Biteng failed to afford CariAo the opportunity to be heard as required by due process before citing him with indirect contempt.
This failure in procedural due process was deemed to constitute gross ignorance of the law and incompetence on the part of Judge Biteng.

Whether the order for CariAo’s arrest for indirect contempt violated his right to due process, given he was not provided an opportunity to be heard prior to the imposition of the arrest order.
Whether the failure to follow the proper procedures in indirect contempt proceedings constitutes gross ignorance of the law and incompetence by a judicial officer.

Whether an administrative complaint against a judge who has retired can still be pursued and adjudicated.
The relevance of prior jurisprudence and cases indicating that administrative cases remain active irrespective of the respondent’s retirement.

Whether the amended writ of execution, particularly the order for ejecting occupants from the premises, was properly executed and justified.
If the issuance of the arrest order under the amended writ was marred by procedural irregularities that undermined its legality.

Whether the disciplinary measures imposed (i.e., the withholding of retirement benefits and the imposition of a fine) were appropriate in view of the administrative findings against Judge Biteng.
The extent to which past disciplinary actions against the respondent influenced the current decision regarding accountability for judicial errors.