Title
Supreme Court
Pancho vs. Aguirre, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196
Decision Date
Apr 7, 2010
Judge Aguirre found liable for gross ignorance of law, imposing excessive contempt penalty; fined P25,000 from retirement benefits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210905)

Facts of the Case

On July 13, 2000, Judge Aguirre found the complainants guilty of contempt against the Municipal Trial Court and sentenced them to four months of imprisonment, subsequently issuing arrest warrants. The complainants argued that the respondent acted improperly by giving due course to an unverified motion for contempt and erroneously imposed a penalty exceeding what was permissible under applicable laws and rules.

Relevant Legal Framework

The applicable law for this case revolves around Section 4 and Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically, Section 4 requires that proceedings for indirect contempt be initiated by a verified petition unless the contempt charges arose from actions in court. Section 7 delineates the penalties for indirect contempt, which vary based on whether the contempt is committed against a Regional Trial Court or a lower court.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the respondent’s July 13, 2000 Order but modified the imposed penalty from four months to one month of imprisonment, noting that the good thereafter were violations of an injunctive order from the Municipal Trial Court. This modification is based on the stipulations set forth in Section 7 of Rule 71, which prescribes specific penalties for contempt depending on the court involved.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

In a Memorandum dated April 2, 2009, the OCA found Judge Aguirre liable for gross ignorance of the law, emphasizing that Section 7 of Rule 71 is clear and unambiguous. The OCA recommended that he be fined P25,000 for his failure to adhere to the correct legal procedures when imposing the original contempt penalty.

Legal Conclusions

The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Aguirre's actions constituted gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that when legal procedural matters are elementary, failure to comply or a misunderstanding of such laws warrants

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.