LOLITA QUE LIM, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROGER A. DOMAGAS, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative complaint filed by Lolita Que Lim against Regional Trial Court
Judge Roger A. Domagas, for gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency and
incompetence, in respect of Special Proceeding No. 527, entitled “In the
Matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus of Daniel Christopher G. Lim, Kristine
Marie G. Lim and Katrine Anne G. Lim.” The present controversy arose from
the following facts:

A petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed
by Maria Adelinda Goze Lim, with Daniel Que Lim and herein complainant Lolita
Que Lim as respondents, in Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao,
Cagayan. Respondent Judge Roger A.
Domagas, while acting as pairing judge of said court, heard the case.

On 19 February 1992, respondent Judge Domagas issued an order
requiring Lolita Que Lim and Daniel Que Lim to appear before the court, to
produce and bring before the court the three (3) minor children subject of the
proceedings and to explain the cause of their restraint over the said minors.^[1]
This order, however, was not served on Daniel Que Lim and Lolita Que Lim
because they were not home at the time of service.

On 21 February 1992, another order similar in tenor to the 19
February 1992 order was issued by respondent Judge Domagas; this order was
served on Lim Hua, the husband of Lolita Que Lim.^[2]

Apparently, the said order was not complied with by Daniel Que
Lim and Lolita Que Lim because on 5 March 1992, a Motion to Declare Respondents in Contempt was filed by Maria Adelinda
Goze Lim.

Acting on the Motion to
Declare Respondents in Contempt, respondent Judge Domagas summarily
issued the following order on 27 April 1992:

“Considering the Sheriff’s report and return, the
non-appearance of respondent Daniel Que Lim and non-production by him of the
three (3) minor children, Daniel Christopher, Kristine Marie and Katrine Anne,
all surnamed Lim, without any justification and considering further the order
of the court dated March 26, 1992, whereby parties agreed to bring to court the
said minors, the Court hereby penalizes Daniel Que Lim and Lolita Que Lim for
contempt and hereby sentences them to prison until they produce before this
court said three (3) minor children, said imprisonment not to exceed six (6)
months.

Upon manifestation of Atty. Donato, let a hold departure order be
issued against Daniel Que Lim and the said three (3) minor children and also
against Lolita Que Lim.

Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation, Manila for its information and guidance and the NBI for the
arrest of herein respondents.”^[3]

Subsequently, a Motion to
Lift Warrant of Arrest and Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 April 1992 was
filed by herein complainant Lolita Que Lim manifesting that she had never
promised to bring the three (3) minor children to court. Complainant also averred that her
co-respondent in the Habeas Corpus proceedings, Daniel Que Lim, was not properly
served with summons. Lastly,
complainant pointed out that because there was no notice and hearing on the
Motion for Contempt, respondent Judge could not order her and Daniel Que Lim’s
arrest.^[4]

Judge Teodoro L. Hernando, the regular presiding judge, upon
finding that there was no basis for holding complainant and Daniel Que Lim
guilty of contempt, issued an order dated 8 May 1992, lifting the warrants of
arrest but maintaining the hold departure order.^[5]

Before this Court, complainant reiterates the averments contained
in her Motion to Lift Warrants of Arrest and Motion for Reconsideration in her
complaint and adds that respondent Judge acted maliciously, whimsically and
with gross ignorance of the law when he issued the questioned order of 27 April
1992.

For his part, respondent Judge Domagas, in his comment, maintains
that he issued the questioned order pursuant to a 26 March 1992 order whereby
complainant and Daniel Que Lim agreed to bring the minors before the
court. Moreover, he felt that the
petition for Habeas Corpus was urgent and he believed that the accused party
“would be brought to custody pending the proceedings pursuant to the last
paragraph of section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.” Lastly, respondent
Judge claims that since the 27 April 1992 order was never implemented, no
actual damage was caused and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

After respondent’s comment and complainant’s reply were filed,
the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator. Deputy Court Administrator Juanito Bernad,
after conducting an investigation, submitted his report to the Court dated 26
July 1993 with the recommendation that respondent Judge Domagas be fined five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) for ignorance of the law.

The Court accepts the conclusion and recommendation reached by
the Office of the Court Administrator, except for the amount of the
fine.

What was involved in the case before respondent Judge was
indirect contempt of court under section 3(b) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,
which requires that a written charge be filed and an opportunity given to the
accused to be heard by himself or counsel, before the accused may be punished
for contempt. Section 3(b) of Rule 71
provides:

“Sec. 3. Indirect
contempts to be punished after charge and hearing. — After charge in writing has been filed,
and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a
person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for contempt;

x x x              x x x                x
x x

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, judgment, or
command of a court; or injunction granted by a court or judge, x x x

x x x             x x x               x x x
“

In the proceeding at bar, complainant and Daniel Que Lim were
punished for alleged contumacious refusal to bring the three (3) minor children
before the respondent’s court and on the part of Daniel Que Lim, alleged
refusal to appear in court, without having been given an opportunity to rebut
the charges and without having been notified by service of summons of the
hearing of the Habeas Corpus case. In
declaring the complainant and Daniel Que Lim guilty of indirect contempt and
ordering their arrest without complying with the aforementioned rule,
respondent judge acted not only without or in excess of his jurisdiction^[6]
but with gross ignorance of the law.^[7]

Respondent Judge Domagas owes it to the public to know the law to
be applied in a particular controversy. In so doing, he is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules.^[8]
Notwithstanding respondent Judge’s opinion regarding the urgency of the case,
the law and settled jurisprudence should not be sacrificed for the sake of
expediency.

As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty
or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.^[9]
However, while judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account
merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, it is imperative that they
be conversant with basic legal principles like the one involved here.^[10]
Fortunately for respondent Judge, his order of 27 April 1992 was caught in time
by the regular presiding judge and hence not actually enforced upon
complainant; otherwise, a heavier penalty on respondent Judge would be called
for.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to HOLD respondent Judge
Roger A. Domagas guilty of gross ignorance of the law and to REQUIRE him to pay
a fine equivalent to Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), with a WARNING that
repetition of the same or similar offense will be met with a more severe
penalty.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Padilla and
Griño-Aquino, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Motion to declare respondents in
contempt, Annex “F,”
p. 1; Rollo, p. 22.

^[2]
Ibid.

^[3]
Order dated 27 April 1992, Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 12­-13.

^[4]
Motion to declare respondent’s in contempt, Annex “H,” p. 2; Rollo, p. 28.

^[5]
Order dated 8 May 1992, Annex “I,” Rollo, pp. 30-31.

^[6]
Felizmena v. Galano, 131 SCRA
165 (1984); Caluag v. Pecson, 82 Phil. 8 (1948).

^[7]
See, generally, Libarios v. Dabalos,
199 SCRA 48 (1991); Quizon v. Baltazar, Jr., 65 SCRA 293 (1975).

^[8]
Ubongon v. Mayo, 99 SCRA 30
(1980).

^[9]
Abad v. Bleza, 145 SCRA 1
(1986); Revita v. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 (1980).

^[10]
Ubongon v. Mayo, supra;
Ajeno v. Inserto, 71 SCRA 166 (1976).