Ignorance of The Law: SC fines Laguna judge

The Supreme Court (SC) has fined a Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge in Sta. Cruz, Laguna for “ignorance of the law” and warned him of a more severe penalty if the offense is repeated.

Acting on an administrative complaint, the SC ordered MTC Judge Elpidio Calis to pay a fine of P5,000 in connection with his issuance of a warrant of arrest against respondent Richard Si in a case of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna and concurred in by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, and Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Renato Corona, and Teresita Leonardo de Castro.

Si filed the administrative complaint against Calis for alleged ignorance of the law and manifest bias and partiality relative to his case on July 26, 2002.

In his complaint, Si said he figured in a road accident on March 26, 2002 in front of the Land Bank of the Philippines building in Sta. Cruz, Laguna when the car he was driving, a Toyota Corolla, bumped the rear of a Nissan Sentra being rented by lawyer Ceriaco Sumaya, alleged to be a close friend of Calis.

Sumaya, according to Si, jacked up the minimal damage to his car by adding a charge for the repair and replacement of the damaged windshield.

Notwithstanding the fact that Si’s offense carried only a fine as penalty, Calis issued a warrant of arrest for Si and imposed a bail of P21,200 for his provisional liberty.

For his part, Calis claimed that his act was in accordance with jurisprudence. 

He said the matter was “merely an oversight” on his part and that Si “should have raised an objection through a motion to quash and having failed to do so is deemed to have waived the same.”

But the SC said, “It is the duty of judges to keep themselves abreast of the law and the rules of court and the latest jurisprudence, for ignorance of the law on their part is the mainspring of injustice.”

Calis, it said, failed to fulfill this duty. “An oversight of a new provision of the law or the rules is not a valid excuse from performing this bounden duty,” it said.