DR. JAIME O. SEVILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ABRAHAM B. BORRETA, RTC, BRANCH 154, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.

Sevilla versus Borreta

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Dr. Jaime O. Sevilla against Judge Abraham B. Borreta, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 154. The complaint charges the respondent with ignorance of the law and delay of justice under the Code of Judicial Conduct, arising from his issuance of a hold-departure order in a civil case for support and his handling of the motions to lift it. The case matters because it fixes two rules every reviewee must carry: a hold-departure order may be issued only in criminal cases, and contempt of court, though criminal in its procedural aspect, remains a special civil action that cannot be converted into a criminal case.

Procedural History

The case began as a verified complaint filed with the Supreme Court on September 19, 2002. The Court instructed the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate and report its findings. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the respondent erred in issuing the hold-departure order and failed to act promptly on the motion to lift it, and recommended that he be reprimanded with a stern warning. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court rendered its decision on the basis of the records and the recommendation of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Mrs. Carmelita C. Sevilla filed a complaint for support against her estranged husband, Dr. Jaime O. Sevilla. Presiding Judge Ramon R. Buenaventura of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 154, issued an order dated July 4, 2001, directing Dr. Sevilla to pay 40,000 pesos to Mrs. Sevilla and 32,000 pesos to their son, Carlos Rafael Sevilla. On September 25, 2001, Mrs. Sevilla filed a motion for execution of that order. On October 1, 2001, the respondent assumed office as Presiding Judge of Branch 154.

On November 16, 2001, Mrs. Sevilla filed a motion for execution and for the issuance of a hold-departure order, alleging that Dr. Sevilla had failed to remit the total accumulated unpaid support of 72,000 pesos and had shown no intention to obey the order. On April 3, 2002, the respondent granted the motion, and on May 8, 2002, the Court directed the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation to include Dr. Sevilla in its hold-departure order list. Dr. Sevilla moved for reconsideration, questioning the factual and legal basis of the order and invoking his constitutional right to travel. On June 6, 2002, he paid the 72,000 pesos, as shown by the Sheriff's Return dated June 28, 2002.

On June 17, 2002, Dr. Sevilla filed a supplement to his motion for reconsideration, alleging that the writ of execution had already been satisfied and praying for the cancellation of the hold-departure order. At the hearing on June 28, 2002, his counsel pointed out that the order violated Circular Number 39-97, which allows a hold-departure order only in criminal cases. The respondent required a comment from the opposition within five days because the Sheriff's Return had not yet been filed. On July 22, 2002, Dr. Sevilla filed another urgent motion to lift the order on the ground that its basis had become moot and academic. On August 9, 2002, the respondent lifted the hold-departure order upon the filing of a new motion dated August 5, 2002. The complaint followed on September 19, 2002.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of ignorance of the law for issuing a hold-departure order in a civil case for support.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering an order lifting the hold-departure order.

Applicable Provisions

Circular Number 39-97, the guidelines in the issuance of hold-departure orders, provides:

Hold-Departure Orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.

This is the provision the respondent violated, since the case before him was a civil action for support and not a criminal case.

Rule 71 of the Rules of Court governs contempt, and the Court characterizes it in these words:

Contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action that cannot be converted into a criminal action.

This defeats the respondent's justification that the refusal to give support could give rise to a contempt proceeding in the nature of a criminal action, which he used as his basis for issuing the hold-departure order.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent erred in issuing the hold-departure order. The respondent had argued that the complainant's refusal or erratic failure to give support could give rise to an action for contempt, which is in the nature of a criminal action punishable by imprisonment, and that this was his basis for the order. The Court rejected this reasoning. Contempt is in the nature of a criminal action only with regard to its procedural aspect. A contempt proceeding is sui generis, meaning it is unique in kind. While it has elements of both a civil and a criminal proceeding, it is not a criminal proceeding even though the contemptuous act involved could be a crime. It is remedial and civil in nature, for the enforcement of a duty, and auxiliary to the main case because it proceeds out of the original case. The contempt in this case was merely an incident of the main civil case. The Court also noted that the respondent could not feign lack of knowledge of the circular because he himself cited it in his order dated April 3, 2002.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Court Administrator that the respondent failed to appreciate the circumstances necessitating the lifting of the hold-departure order more promptly. More than one month had lapsed from the hearing on June 28, 2002, and the complainant, a retained physician of Cathay Pacific Airlines charged with accompanying ailing passengers on flights, could not perform his professional obligations while the order stood. The Court also observed that 72,000 pesos was too modest an amount for the complainant to think of absconding.

Doctrine

A hold-departure order may be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts, as Circular Number 39-97 commands. A judge who issues one in a civil case for support is guilty of ignorance of the law, and he cannot claim ignorance of the circular where he himself cited it in his order. Contempt of court is sui generis: it is criminal only in its procedural aspect, but it remains remedial and civil in nature, auxiliary to the main case, and a special civil action under Rule 71 that cannot be converted into a criminal action. A judge must act on a motion to lift a hold-departure order with dispatch, considering the burden the order places on the party's right to travel and his professional obligations.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Abraham B. Borreta guilty of ignorance of the law and undue delay in rendering an order, and reprimanded him with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a hold-departure order may be issued only in criminal cases, and contempt under Rule 71 is a special civil action that cannot be converted into a criminal action. Examiners use this case to test the scope of hold-departure orders and the civil nature of contempt proceedings.