TITLE OF THE CASE: OLIVEROS V.

SISON

DATE OF PROMULGATION: March 14, 2008

SUBJECT AREA: Civil Procedure

KEY DOCTRINES/CONCEPTS: Gross Ignorance of the Law; Indirect Contempt

FACTS:

Before the SC is a Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Judge Dionisio C. Sison seeking the reversal the SC
decision finding him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined P1,000. Judge Sison failed to abide by the
requirements under the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure in citing complainant spouses Arleen and Lorna Oliveros
for indirect contempt. As gleaned from the resolution, the contempt charge was not filed as a separate and
independent petition from the principal action pending before the court. Also, the warrant of arrest was issued on the
same day that the motion for contempt was made in a hearing in which the complainant spouses failed to appear.

Complainant spouses Oliveros filed a petition for certiorari before the CA questioning the contempt order.
Subsequently, they filed the present administrative case with the SC. They failed to inform the SC of the petition for
certiorari pending before the CA.

ISSUE 1: WON JUDGE SISON IS GUILTY OF GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

DECISION: Yes.

RATIO:

Rule 71 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure explicitly sets out the requirements for instituting a complaint for
indirect contempt.

SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu
proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any formal charge
requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with
supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon
full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court
concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and
decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt
charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.

Good faith in situations of fallible discretion inheres only within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment and does not
apply where the issues are so simple and the applicable legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond permissible
margins of error. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Moreover, complainants should have been given the opportunity to be heard and to defend themselves against the
contempt charge, involving as it does such a dire consequence as imprisonment for six months. The undue haste in
disposing of the motion for contempt deprived complainants of one of man’s most fundamental rights, the right to be
heard.

ISSUE 2: WON COMPLAINANT SPOUSES OLIVEROS MAY BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTEMPT FOR NOT
DISCLOSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI INVOLVING THE SAME ISSUE PENDING BEFORE THE CA

DECISION: Yes

RATIO:

Complainants themselves admitted that they failed to inform this Court of the petition they filed before the CA within
five days after they “learn[ed] that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending,” as provided by the
Rules. They, however, argue that they were not aware of such requirement. While that may have been true, their
argument becomes untenable when seen in the light of their subsequent actions. The Verification/Certification of the
Petition for Certiorari before the CA clearly shows that both complainants signed the same. Thus, they are presumed
to have read its contents. This should have already made them aware of the requirement to inform the Court of the
filing of the case before the CA considering that in the latter case, they are praying for the nullification of the very
same Order for which they were seeking administrative sanctions against respondent Judge before this Court. Thus,
there appears a real possibility that the pernicious effect sought to be prevented by the rules requiring the
Certification against Forum Shopping would arise. Accordingly, the complainants could be held liable for contempt of
this Court.