CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I

JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Case Number: 222

Christine Joy Carbonel
Topic: Freedom of Religion
Case Name: Perfecto V. Judge Alma Consuelo D. Esidera
GR No.: RTJ – 15 - 2417
Date: July 22 , 2015

I. Facts:

In support of the charges, the complainant alleges that he filed a Petition to Cite for
Contempt against one Dalmacio Grafil and a Ven S. Labro. The complainant laments that the
case has since been gathering dust in the court of the respondent. He maintains that the
respondent should be made administratively liable for her failure to act on the case within a
reasonable period of time.

On the second cause of action, the complainant claims that he is the publisher and Editor-in-
Chief of the Catarman Weekly Tribune (CWT), the only accredited newspaper in Northern
Samar. He claims that in Special Proceedings Nos. C-346 (for adoption and change of name)
and C-352 (for adoption), the respondent directed the petitioners to have her orders published
in a newspaper of national circulation. Through these directives, the complainant posits, the
respondent betrayed her ignorance of the law, considering that all judicial notices and orders
emanating from the courts of Catarman, Northern Samar should be published only in the
CWT, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1079.

The Court issued a Resolution re-docketing the case as a formal administrative complaint
against the respondent.

Respondent advises the Court that she is of the firm belief that the second cause of action for
ignorance of the law (non-publication of court orders/notices in CWT) had already been
passed upon by the Court (Third Division) in its Decision in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270.

II. Issues:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of ignorance of the law?

III. Ruling:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

1. R.A. No. 9337 has not violated

the provisions. The revenue bill
exclusively originated in the
House of Representatives, the
Senate was acting within its
constitutional power to introduce
amendments to the House bill
when it included provisions in
Senate Bill No. 1950 amending
corporate income taxes,
percentage, excise and franchise
taxes. Verily, Article VI, Section
24 of
the Constitution does not contain
any prohibition or limitation on
the extent of the amendments
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

that may be introduced by the

Senate to the House revenue bill.
2. There is no undue delegation
of legislative power but only of
the discretion as to the execution
of a law. This is constitutionally
permissible. Congress does not
abdicate its functions or unduly
delegate power when it describes
what job must be done, who must
do it, and what is the scope
of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the
only way in which the legislative
process can go forward.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

3. The equal protection clause

under the Constitution means that
“no person or class of persons
shall be deprived of the same
protection of laws which is
enjoyed by other persons or other
classes in the same place and in
like circumstances.” The Supreme
Court held no decision on this
matter. The power of the State to
make reasonable and natural
classifications for the purposes
of taxation has long been
established. Whether it relates to
the subject of taxation, the kind of
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

property, the rates to be levied,

or the amounts to be raised, the
methods of assessment,
valuation and collection, the
State’s power is entitled to
presumption of validity. As a rule,
the
judiciary will not interfere
with such power absent a
clear showing of
unreasonableness,
discrimination, or arbitrariness.
Indeed, the respondent deserves to be sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law. With
her inaction on the petition for contempt, she betrayed her unbecoming lack of familiarity with
basic procedural rules such as what was involved in the contempt proceedings before her
court. She should have known that while the petitioners have the responsibility to move ex
parte to have the case scheduled for preliminary conference, the court (through the branch
clerk of court) has the duty to schedule the case for pre-trial in the event that the petitioners
fail to file the motion.

The respondent cannot pass the blame for the lack of movement in the case to her staff who,
she claims, were monitoring the case. As presiding judge, she should account for the anomaly
that since the respondents filed their answer, the petition for contempt had been gathering dust
or had not moved in the respondent's court. Clearly, the respondent fell short of the standards
of competence and legal proficiency expected of magistrates of the law in her handling of the
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW I
JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
petition for contempt. As in Magpali v. Pardo, she should be fined P10,000.00 for gross
ignorance of the law.

Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera is found LIABLE for gross ignorance of the law.

IV. Ratio Decidendi:

Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. A
judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to apply settled law and
jurisprudence.

V. Statement of Principle / Doctrine:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: administrative law; judges; gross ignorance of law