Novel and hard rule

A patent disregard of simple, elementary and well known rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law. But in this case of a Regional Trial Court Judge (Judge GB), his error is not considered to have risen to the level of being “gross”.

The case arose from a verified handwritten petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Writ of Amparo filed by Ana in behalf of her brother Lito against the police officers who arrested and detained Lito for questioning upon the report and at the instance of Rolly.

The arrest of Lito followed an incident which happened on January 23, 2008 on a disputed parcel of land with an area of 126,112 square meters which Rolly claimed to be co-owned by him and Sonny, in whose name the Original Certificate of Title was registered.

Rolly alleged that he was then supervising the on-going construction on the disputed property together with his nephew and niece when Lito and heavily armed men arrived and forced themselves inside the premises of the disputed property; that Lito and his companions harassed and threatened to harm and to kill him and his workers, uttered defamatory statements and accused him of land-grabbing, occupied the property and destroyed their building materials; that he forthwith reported the incident to the nearby police which promptly responded, arrested Lito and detained the latter.

The petition of Lito, through his sister Ana was referred by the Clerk of Court to the sala of Judge GB without any raffle because the executive and the vice executive judge were no longer around being about 4:45 pm already. Judge JB immediately issued the Writ of Amparo dated January 23, 2008 directing the police officers to release Lito to the custody of his lawyer upon receipt of said writ but “not later than 6 pm today”.

Believing that the Writ of Amparo was issued with haste and claiming that the handwritten petition did not give any ground to warrant its issuance, Rolly filed an administrative complaint against Judge GB for, among others, gross ignorance of the law. Was Judge GB guilty of gross ignorance?

No. Judge JB indeed erred in issuing the Writ of Amaparo in Lito’s favor. Had he read Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo more closely he would have realized that the writ in its present form, only applies to “extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof”. The present case involves interest on property and commercial in nature — concerns which are not covered by the Writ of Amparo. This writ was originally conceived as a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is not a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial; neither should it be issued on amorphous and uncertain grounds.

But Judge GB’s error does not rise to the level of gross ignorance of the law that is defined by jurisprudence as being plainly uninformed about, or patently disregarding simple, elementary and well known rules. At the time Judge GB issued the Writ of Amparo, the Rule governing it has been effective only for barely three months. So he cannot be said to have been fully educated and informed on the novel aspects of the Writ of Amparo. At that time the Rule cannot be said to be a simple, elementary and well known rule that its patent disregard would constitute gross ignorance of the law.

More importantly, liability for gross ignorance of the law attaches not only when the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge is found to be erroneous but also when he is motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other similar motives. In the present case such motive on the part of Judge GB has not been established.

Besides the errors attributed to Judge GB here pertain to the exercise of his official adjudicative function. His official acts no matter how erroneous cannot be subjected to liability, civil, criminal or administrative as long as he acts in good faith. The propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Amparo cannot therefore be raised as an issue in this administrative case. The proper remedy is judicial, by filing an appeal from the final order or judgment of Judge GB. Disciplinary proceedings against Judges do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary; an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only when available remedies have been settled. So the administrative complaint against Judge GB should be dismissed (Salcedo vs. Bollozos, AM RTJ-10-2286, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 27)

* * *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]