Sevilla v. Borreta
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Jaime O. Sevilla filed a verified complaint against Judge Abraham B. Borreta for Ignorance of the Law and Delay of Justice. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 37822, a case for support filed by Mrs. Carmelita C. Sevilla against her estranged husband, Dr. Sevilla. On July 4, 2001, an Order was issued directing Dr. Sevilla to pay P40,000 to Mrs. Sevilla and P32,000 to their son. On September 25, 2001, Mrs. Sevilla filed a Motion for Execution of this Order. Respondent Judge Borreta assumed office on October 1, 2001. On November 16, 2001, Mrs. Sevilla filed a Motion for Execution and Issuance of a Hold-Departure Order (HDO), alleging non-payment of P72,000 in accumulated support. On April 3, 2002, respondent judge granted the motion, and on May 8, 2002, the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) was directed to include Dr. Sevilla in the hold-departure list. Procedural History: Dr. Sevilla, through counsel, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the HDO on May 30, 2002, arguing it lacked factual and legal basis and infringed his right to travel. On June 6, 2002, Dr. Sevilla paid the P72,000. On June 17, 2002, he filed a Supplement to the Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the cancellation of the HDO, stating the Writ of Execution had been satisfied. During a hearing on June 28, 2002, Dr. Sevilla's counsel alleged the respondent judge refused to look at the payment receipt and was irked when counsel pointed out that HDOs are only for criminal cases per Circular No. 39-97. The respondent judge required a comment from the opposition. On July 22, 2002, Dr. Sevilla filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Lift Hold-Departure Order, asserting the basis for the HDO was moot. On August 9, 2002, the respondent judge lifted the HDO upon the filing of a new Motion to Lift Hold-Departure Order on August 5, 2002. The Petition: The complaint was filed on September 19, 2002. Complainant contended that the issuance of the HDO demonstrated the respondent judge's incompetence and ignorance of the law, as Circular No. 39-97 limits HDO issuance to criminal cases. Complainant also alleged undue delay in lifting the HDO. Respondent judge argued the HDO had legal basis, as failure to provide support could lead to contempt, which is criminal in nature. He also claimed he acted promptly and in good faith in lifting the HDO, and that requiring a comment was to afford due process and ascertain compliance through the Sheriff's Return.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed ignorance of the law in issuing a hold-departure order in a civil case. Whether the respondent judge unduly delayed in lifting the hold-departure order.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Judge Abraham B. Borreta guilty of ignorance of the law and undue delay in rendering an order. He is reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ignorance of the law in issuing the hold-departure order: The Court held that respondent judge erred in issuing the hold-departure order (HDO). While contempt of court can be considered criminal in nature regarding its procedural aspects, a contempt proceeding under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action and not a criminal proceeding. It is remedial and civil in nature, aimed at enforcing a duty and auxiliary to the main case. The Court emphasized that Circular No. 39-97 explicitly provides that an HDO may be issued only in criminal cases by the Regional Trial Court. The respondent judge could not feign ignorance of this circular, as he himself cited it in his April 3, 2002 Order. Therefore, his issuance of the HDO in a civil case for support, based on the alleged failure to pay, constituted ignorance of the law. On the issue of undue delay in lifting the hold-departure order: The Court found that the respondent judge failed to appreciate the circumstances necessitating the lifting of the HDO more promptly. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that more than one month elapsed from June 28, 2002 (hearing date) to the filing of the motion to lift the HDO on August 5, 2002. The HDO was only lifted on August 9, 2002. The OCA pointed out that given Dr. Sevilla's profession as a retained physician for an airline, requiring him to accompany ailing passengers, an HDO would impede his professional obligations. Furthermore, the amount of P72,000 was considered modest, making it unlikely for Dr. Sevilla to abscond. The respondent judge's requirement for a comment and the Sheriff's Return, while intended for due process, contributed to the delay, especially when the basis for the HDO was already satisfied.
Main Doctrine
A judge is guilty of ignorance of the law and undue delay in rendering an order for erroneously issuing a hold-departure order in a civil case and for failing to promptly lift it after the basis for its issuance had become moot and academic.