9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

 
 
 
 
 

CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________
 

A.M. No. RTJ-15-2407.  November 22, 2017.*

(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3834-RTJ)
 
EDGAR R. ERICE, complainant, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE
DIONISIO C. SISON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 125, Caloocan
City, respondent.

Administrative Proceedings; Judges; Gross Ignorance of the Law; A

judge becomes liable for gross ignorance of the law when there is a patent
disregard for well-known rules so as to produce an inference of bad faith,
dishonesty and corruption.—Gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge
under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No.
01-8-10-SC. It requires the judge to perform his/her duty to be acquainted
with the basic legal command

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

*  SECOND DIVISION.

 
 

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

of law and rules. Consequently, a judge becomes liable for gross

ignorance of the law when there is a patent disregard for well-known rules
so as to produce an inference of bad faith, dishonesty and corruption.
Against these parameters, Judge Sison failed to perform his basic duty to be
acquainted with the fundamentals of the very law he was tasked to uphold,
and this conclusion remains unchanged notwithstanding the Court’s
supervening Decision in Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, 774 SCRA
431 (2015).  In Carpio-Morales, the Court: (1) declared as unconstitutional
Section 14(2) of RA 6770, and (2) declared as ineffective the policy in
Section 14(1) of RA 6770 against the issuance of a provisional injunctive
writ by courts other than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman until the Court adopts the same
as part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly
issued therefor.
Same; Same; Declaratory Relief; In any event, Judge Sison should
have, at the very least, been aware that court orders or decisions cannot be
the subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief.—Notably, the
Ombudsman’s decisions in disciplinary cases are appealable to the CA
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Consequently, the RTC had no
jurisdiction to interfere with or restrain the execution of the Ombudsman’s
decisions in disciplinary cases, more so, because at the time Judge Sison
issued the TRO on January 10, 2012 and proceeded with the writ of
preliminary injunction on January 17, 2012 against the enforcement of the
Ombudsman Order of Suspension, the CA had already affirmed that very
same Order of Suspension in its Decision dated January 2, 2012. In any
event, Judge Sison should have, at the very least, been aware that court
orders or decisions cannot be the subject matter of a petition for declaratory
relief. They are not included within the purview of the words “other written
instrument” in Rule 63 of the Rules of Court governing petitions for
declaratory relief. The same principle applies to orders, resolutions, or
decisions of quasi-judicial bodies, and this is anchored on the principle of
res judicata. Consequently, a judgment rendered by a court or a quasi-
judicial body is conclusive on the parties, subject only to appellate authority.
The losing party cannot modify or escape the effects of judgment under the
guise of an action for declaratory relief.
Same; Same; Gross Ignorance of the Law; Penalties; As a serious
charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M.

 
 

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 3

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

No. 01-8-10-SC, the penalty for gross ignorance of the law or

procedure ranges from a fine of more than twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) but not exceeding forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) to
dismissal.—As a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as
amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, the penalty for gross ignorance of the
law or procedure ranges from a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00 to dismissal. Inasmuch as Judge Sison had already
retired on December 9, 2014, the imposition of the penalty of suspension is
no longer feasible. In lieu of suspension, a fine may still be imposed.
Considering that this is not Judge Sison’s first offense, the Court finds that
the fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) is justified under the
circumstances. In light of this Court’s Resolution dated August 5, 2015, the
fine shall be charged against the retained amounts from Judge Sison.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Misconduct; Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment or Order;
and Gross Ignorance of the Law.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CAGUIOA,  J.:
 
This is an administrative matter1 filed by Edgar R. Erice (Erice)
against the now-retired Judge Dionisio C. Sison (Judge Sison) of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 125, Caloocan City, for
violation of Section 8, paragraphs 3, 4 and 9 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-
SC,2 in particular: (i) gross misconduct constituting violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, (ii) knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an
appropriate proceeding, and (iii) gross ignorance of the law or
procedure.3

_______________

1  See Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-20

2  Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re Discipline of
Justices and Judges, September 11, 2001.
3  Rollo, p. 292.

 
 

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

Background
 
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as follows:
Complainant Erice, then Vice Mayor of Caloocan City, filed a
complaint against then Mayor Enrico R. Echiverri, City Treasurer
Evelina Garma, Budget Officer Jesusa Garcia and City Accountant
Edna Centeno (Echiverri, et al.) before the Office of the
Ombudsman, for alleged violation of the Government Service
Insurance System Act.4 Acting on the complaint, the Ombudsman
issued an Order5 of Preventive Suspension (Order of Suspension) on
July 18, 2011 against Echiverri, et al., to last until the administrative
adjudication is completed but not to exceed six (6) months.6
Aggrieved by the Order of Suspension, Echiverri, et al. elevated
the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA). While Echiverri, et al. were
able to obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of
preliminary injunction from the CA Special 14th Division,
nevertheless, in its Decision7 dated January 2, 2012, the CA
affirmed the Order of Suspension of the Ombudsman and lifted and
set aside the TRO. The decretal portion of the CA Decision of
January 2, 2012 provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Writ of Preliminary

Injunction issued by this Court is hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, the assailed Order dated July 18, 2011 issued by the Office of
the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-11-0401-G is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.8

_______________

4  Id., at pp. 4, 33-34, 292.

5  Id., at pp. 21-28.
6  Id., at pp. 5, 26.
7   Id., at pp. 30-69. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.
8  Id., at p. 68.

 
 
5

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 5

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

A week later, or on January 9, 2012, Echiverri, et al. filed a

Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction9 with the RTC of Caloocan City, which was
docketed as Special Civil Action No. C-1060 (2012).10 Named as
Respondents in the Petition for Declaratory Relief were Erice
(Complainant in the present administrative matter) and the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Echiverri, et
al. prayed that the RTC “make a definite judicial declaration on the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

rights and obligations of the parties asserting adverse legal interests

with respect to the implementation of [their] suspension.”11
On even date, RTC Executive Judge Eleanor R. Kwong issued a
72-hour ex parte Order to enjoin the DILG and Erice from
implementing the Order of Suspension. Subsequently, the case was
raffled and assigned to Judge Lorenza R. Bordios.12
In the summary hearing held on January 10, 2012, Erice and the
DILG questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC to hear the matter,
considering that the object of the Petition for Declaratory Relief
were the CA Decision and the Order of Suspension of the
Ombudsman. They also raised the matter of forum shopping, with
Erice and the DILG pointing out that Echiverri, et al. had a pending
Motion for Reconsideration13 filed with the CA and a Motion to
Hold in Abeyance the Implementation of the Order of Preventive
Suspension14 with the Office of the Ombudsman.15

_______________

9   Id., at pp. 70-80.

10  Also referred to as Special Civil Action No. C-1060 and Special Civil Action
No. 1060 in other parts of the Rollo.
11  Rollo, pp. 79, 292.
12  Id., at pp. 6, 292.
13  Id., at pp. 148-171.
14  Id., at pp. 172-175.
15  Id., at p. 6.

 
 

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

However, Judge Bordios inhibited herself from proceeding with

the case on January 11, 2012. The case was subsequently re-raffled
to herein Respondent Judge Sison.16
On the same day, January 11, 2012, with the case now pending
before Judge Sison, Erice and the DILG reiterated their Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Dissolve. That afternoon, Judge Sison noted
that the 72-hour TRO of the Order of Suspension would be expiring
the next day, on January 12, 2012, and that the parties ought to finish
with the presentation of evidence before noon of January 12, 2012.
Counsel for the DILG informed Judge Sison that the OSG was not
informed that the summary hearing would proceed at 2:00 p.m. of
January 11, 2012 before Branch 125. Nevertheless, Judge Sison
proceeded with the hearing and allowed Echiverri, et al. to present
their evidence until 5:00 p.m. that day.17
The next day, at 8:00 a.m., the summary hearing continued. The
OSG invoked its right to cross-examine the witnesses earlier
presented by Echiverri, et al. but Judge Sison denied the same,
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

allegedly without consulting the records from Branch 126 that

would indicate that the OSG had made reservations to this effect on
January 10, 2012. At 9:15 a.m., Judge Sison issued an Order18
extending the TRO to 20 days, inclusive of the 72-hour TRO earlier
granted by Judge Kwong.19
On the day scheduled for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss,
January 17, 2012, Judge Sison stated that he would hear evidence in
support of the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. This
compelled Erice to file an Urgent Motion to Inhibit.20 Without ruling
on the Motion to Inhibit,

_______________

16  Id., at pp. 7, 293.

17  Id.
18  Id., at pp. 176-178.
19  Id., at pp. 7-8, 293.
20  Id., at pp. 179-190.

 
 

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 7

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

Judge Sison issued the Order21 granting the writ of preliminary

injunction.22
For his part, in refuting the charges against him, Judge Sison
denied any allegations of the violation of the right to due process of
Erice and the DILG in allowing the summary hearing to proceed and
Echiverri, et al. to present evidence even though the OSG was not
informed of said hearing.23 Judge Sison submitted that:
1. There is no basis for the claim of bias and partiality because the
reason for the extension of the 72-hour TRO to a 20-day TRO
was to accord Echiverri, et al. due process in allowing them to
file their written comment and to argue against the Motion to
Dissolve.24
2. There was no “deplorable haste” in issuing the TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction because “of the limited time provided by
the Rules of Court,” in particular, Rule 58, Section 5; and that
Erice’s counsel, “knowing this time constraint x x x should have
made himself always ready to go to trial and to present his
testimonial and documentary evidences (sic).”25
3. While admitting that the DILG’s counsel appeared before him and
that he denied the OSG’s claim of the right to cross-examine,
Judge Sison claims that Erice failed to produce evidence that he
made such rulings and therefore “should not be believed.”26

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

21  Id., at pp. 198-199.

22  Id., at pp. 9, 12, 293-294.
23  Id., at p. 205.
24  Id., at p. 204.
25  Id., at p. 205.
26  Id.

 
 

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

The Office of the

Court Administrator
(OCA) Report dated

November 4, 2014

 
In its Report27 dated November 4, 2014, the OCA recommended
that:

x x x [R]espondent Judge be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the

Law and FINED in the amount equivalent to his one (1) month salary with
a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.28

 
The basis for the OCA’s recommendation are as follows:
First, insofar as the alleged haste is concerned, indeed, this Court
had ruled in Leviste v. Alameda29 that “the pace in resolving
incidents of the case is not per se an indication of bias.”30
Nevertheless, Judge Sison’s act of issuing a TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction against Erice and the DILG to enjoin the
latter from enforcing the Ombudsman’s Order of Suspension
constitutes a violation of Section 14 of Republic Act No. (RA)
6770,31 which provides:

SEC.  14.  Restrictions.—No writ of injunction shall be issued by any

court to delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under
this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the
investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

_______________

27  Id., at pp. 292-299.

28  Id., at p. 299.
29  640 Phil. 620, 645; 626 SCRA 575, 606 (2010).
30  Rollo, p. 296.
31  An Act Providing for the Functional and Structural Organization of the

Office of the Ombudsman, and for Other Purposes, otherwise known as “The

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

Ombudsman Act of 1989.”

 
 

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 9

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.

 
Second, in a similar case, Ogka Benito v. Balindong,32 therein
Respondent Judge Balindong issued a 72-hour TRO and extended
the same for 20 days, against the enforcement of a DILG
Department Order implementing a decision to suspend an official for
nine months. This Court found that Judge Balindong’s act
constituted gross ignorance of the law for violating Section 14 of
RA 6770. Judge Balindong was fined P30,000.00.33
Third, the OCA observed that although denominated as a Petition
for Declaratory Relief, it was clear that Echiverri, et al. merely
sought the injunction to prevent the implementation of the
Ombudsman’s Order of Suspension. In this regard, it is the CA that
has appellate jurisdiction over the administrative cases resolved by
the Ombudsman. Thus, Judge Sison cannot relax the rules, take
cognizance of the case, and issue a TRO and writ of injunction
which are beyond his authority.34
The OCA noted that this is Judge Sison’s second offense. In
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050, he was found guilty of Gross Ignorance of
the Law and was fined P10,000.00. Considering that this is Judge
Sison’s second offense, the penalty of suspension should have been
imposed on him; however, since he was due for compulsory
retirement on December 9, 2014, the OCA recommended that in lieu
of suspension, Judge Sison should be meted a penalty of fine
equivalent to one (1) month’s salary.35

_______________

32  599 Phil. 196; 580 SCRA 41 (2009).

33  Rollo, p. 297.
34  Id., at pp. 297-298, citing Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787; 295 SCRA 470
(1998).
35  Id., at pp. 295-299.

10

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

This Court’s Resolutions

 
In a Resolution dated February 23, 2015, this Court noted the
OCA Report dated November 4, 2014 recommending that Judge
Sison be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and be fined an
amount equivalent to one (1) month’s salary, with a warning that
repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.36
Subsequently, in a Resolution dated August 5, 2015, this Court,
acting on Judge Sison’s request for the payment of his terminal
leave, resolved the same in his favor, and released the terminal leave
benefits after retaining the amount equivalent to his two (2) months’
salary, to answer for whatever penalty the Court may impose against
him in his pending administrative cases.37
 
Discussion
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA, with a
modification on the penalty imposed on Judge Sison.
Gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge under Section 8,
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-
SC. It requires the judge to perform his/her duty to be acquainted
with the basic legal command of law and rules.38 Consequently, a
judge becomes liable for gross ignorance of the law when there is a
patent disregard for well-known rules so as to produce an inference
of bad faith, dishonesty and corruption.39
Against these parameters, Judge Sison failed to perform his basic
duty to be acquainted with the fundamentals of the

_______________

36  Id., at p. 307.
37  Id., at p. 314.
38   Perfecto v. Desales-Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2258, September 10, 2012
(Unsigned Resolution).
39  Id.; see Gacad v. Clapis, Jr., 691 Phil. 126, 140; 676 SCRA 534, 548 (2012).

 
 

11

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 11

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

very law he was tasked to uphold, and this conclusion remains

unchanged notwithstanding the Court’s supervening Decision in
Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals.40 In Carpio-Morales, the
Court: (1) declared as unconstitutional Section 14(2)41 of RA 6770,
and (2) declared as ineffective the policy in Section 14(1)42 of RA

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

6770 against the issuance of a provisional injunctive writ by courts

other than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman until the Court adopts the same as
part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly
issued therefor.43
Be that as it may, the subsequent declaration of the policy in
Section 14(1) of RA 6770 as ineffective and of Section 14(2) as
invalid, does not serve to exonerate Judge Sison from administrative
liability because he failed to consider and act in accordance with the
basic principle of judicial stability or noninterference.44 Pursuant to
this principle, where decisions of certain administrative bodies are
appealable to the CA, these adjudicative bodies are coequal with the
RTCs and their actions are logically beyond the control of the
RTC.45

_______________

40   Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), 772 Phil. 672; 774

SCRA 431 (2015).
41  SEC.  14.  Restrictions.—x x x
No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.
42  SEC.  14.  Restrictions.—No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to
delay an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless
there is a prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside
the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.
43  Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), supra at p. 781; p. 558.
44  See Tan v. Cinco, G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016, 793 SCRA 610, 618-619.
45  Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) v. Gatuz, 771 Phil.
153, 159; 772 SCRA 383, 390 (2015), citing Springfield Development Corporation,
Inc. v. Presiding Judge, RTC,

 
 

12

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

Notably, the Ombudsman’s decisions in disciplinary cases are

appealable to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the RTC had no jurisdiction to interfere with or
restrain the execution of the Ombudsman’s decisions in disciplinary
cases,46 more so, because at the time Judge Sison issued the TRO on
January 10, 2012 and proceeded with the writ of preliminary
injunction on January 17, 2012 against the enforcement of the
Ombudsman Order of Suspension, the CA had already affirmed that
very same Order of Suspension in its Decision dated January 2,
2012.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

In any event, Judge Sison should have, at the very least, been
aware that court orders or decisions cannot be the subject matter of
a petition for declaratory relief.47 They are not included within the
purview of the words “other written instrument”48 in Rule 6349 of
the Rules of Court governing petitions for declaratory relief. The
same principle applies to

_______________

Misamis Oriental, Br. 40, Cagayan de Oro City, 543 Phil. 298, 311; 514 SCRA 326,
338 (2007); Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa, 274 Phil. 1156, 1191; 197
SCRA 853, 873 (1991); Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA, 253 Phil.
344, 355; 171 SCRA 348, 360 (1989).
46  Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) v. Gatuz, id., at p.
160; p. 390.
47  Id., at p. 158; p. 389, citing Reyes v. Ortiz, 642 Phil. 158, 171; 628 SCRA 1, 14
(2010); Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 1, 19; 391 SCRA 370, 384
(2002); Tanda v. Aldaya, 98 Phil. 244, 247 (1956).
48  Id., citing Tanda v. Aldaya, id.
49  Rules of Court, Rule 63, Section  1.  Who may file petition.—Any person
interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are
affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other
governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in
the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or
validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.

 
 

13

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 13

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

orders, resolutions, or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies,50 and this

is anchored on the principle of res judicata.51 Consequently, a
judgment rendered by a court or a quasi-judicial body is conclusive
on the parties, subject only to appellate authority.52 The losing party
cannot modify or escape the effects of judgment under the guise of
an action for declaratory relief.53
Here, Echiverri, et al.’s Petition for Declaratory Relief
specifically prayed that the RTC “make a definite judicial declaration
on the rights and obligations of the parties asserting adverse legal
interests with respect to the implementation of the [order of]
preventive suspension,”54 effectively putting into question the CA-
affirmed Ombudsman Order of Suspension — a matter clearly
beyond the ambit of the RTCs jurisdiction. This, coupled with the
deference to the basic precepts of jurisdiction required of judges,
leads to no other conclusion than that Judge Sison acted in gross
ignorance of the law in proceeding with the issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

As a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as

amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, the penalty for gross ignorance
of the law or procedure ranges from a fine of more than P20,000.00
but not exceeding P40,000.00 to dismissal.55 Inas-

_______________

50  Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) v. Gatuz, supra note
45 at pp. 158-159; p. 389.
51  Id., at p. 159; p. 389.
52  Id.
53  Id.
54  Rollo, p. 79.
55  Rules of Court, Rule 140, Section 11, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC
provides:
SEC.  11.  Sanctions.—A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1.  Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled

 
 

14

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

much as Judge Sison had already retired on December 9, 2014, the

imposition of the penalty of suspension is no longer feasible. In lieu
of suspension, a fine may still be imposed.56 Considering that this is
not Judge Sison’s first offense, the Court finds that the fine of Forty
Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) is justified under the circumstances.57
In light of this Court’s Resolution dated August 5, 2015, the fine
shall be charged against the retained amounts from Judge Sison.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds retired Judge Dionisio
C. Sison GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law under Section 8,
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-
SC, and is hereby ordered to PAY A FINE of Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00), to be deducted from his terminal leave benefits earlier
retained pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated August 5, 2015,
with the remaining amount to be released to Judge Sison
immediately.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,

concur.

_______________

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 12/13
9/6/21, 6:50 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 846

corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case

include accrued leave credits;
2.  Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3.  A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
56  Office of the Court Administrator v. Leonida, 654 Phil. 668, 679; 639 SCRA
697, 707 (2011); Bautista v. Causapin, Jr., 667 Phil. 574, 593; 652 SCRA 442, 462
(2011); Fernandez v. Vasquez, 669 Phil. 619, 637; 654 SCRA 349, 368 (2011); Pleyto
v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation & Detection Group (PNP-
CIDG), 563 Phil. 842, 918; 538 SCRA 534, 594 (2007).
57  See Alconera v. Majaducon, 496 Phil. 833, 842; 457 SCRA 378, 387 (2005)
and Manalastas v. Flores, 466 Phil. 925, 938; 422 SCRA 298, 308 (2004), cited in
Enriquez v. Caminade, 519 Phil. 781, 789-790; 485 SCRA 98, 102 (2006).

 
 

15

VOL. 846, NOVEMBER 22, 2017 15

Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission

Reyes, Jr., J., On Leave.

Respondent Judge Dionisio C. Sison meted with P40,000 fine for

gross ignorance of the law.

Notes.—There is gross ignorance of the law when an error

committed by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious,
or when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and
jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Flores, 755 SCRA 400
[2015])
Gross ignorance of the law by a judge presupposes an appalling
lack of familiarity with simple rules of law or procedures and well-
established jurisprudence that tends to erode the public trust in the
competence and fairness of the court which he personifies. (Rivera
vs. Catalo, 763 SCRA 186 [2015])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017bb82be1b6db5790dd000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 13/13