Seludo vs. Fineza

Ordering the arrest and detention of counsel for failing to attend the promulgation of judgment, without affording due process or any basis in the Rules of Court, constitutes gross ignorance of procedure.

Complainant Atty. Antonio D. Seludo served as defense counsel in Criminal Case No. C-58093 before respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza. A promulgation of decision was reset to November 27, 2002, a date and time that conflicted with a previously set hearing in another criminal case before a different judge. Complainant notified respondent's office of the conflict. Nonetheless, respondent issued an order directing complainant's arrest and detention until the decision could be promulgated.

• Conflicting Schedules: Complainant was defense counsel in Criminal Case No. C-58093 before respondent and Criminal Case Nos. 178462-64 before Judge Ramizo. The promulgation in C-58093 was initially set for November 18, 2002, but was cancelled due to respondent's hospitalization. It was reset to November 27, 2002, at 8:30 a.m., which conflicted with the hearing before Judge Ramizo. Complainant instructed his secretary to inform respondent's office of the conflict.
• Arrest and Detention: On November 27, 2002, respondent issued an order directing complainant's arrest and detention for failing to appear at the promulgation. Complainant was arrested and spent the night in jail. He attempted to seek reconsideration from respondent, who allegedly threatened to run him over with his car.
• Promulgation: The following day, the promulgation was delayed because the public prosecutor arrived late and was improperly dressed, prompting respondent to fine the prosecutor. After the fine was paid, the decision was promulgated and complainant was released.
• Respondent's Comment: Respondent denied the allegations, calling complainant a "fact fabricator," a "congenital liar," an "Indian," and "dim-witted." He claimed the arrest was justified to prevent delay and denied the car incident, stating he merely warned complainant that his foot might get run over.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law / Grave Abuse of Authority: The arrest and detention were illegal and oppressive, violating complainant's constitutional right to due process, as he was not given the opportunity to be heard and was not committing a crime.
• Oppression / Conduct Unbecoming: Respondent's intemperate language and alleged threat to run over complainant with his car constituted oppression and conduct unbecoming of a judge.

• Justification for Arrest: The incarceration of complainant was necessary to avoid delay in the promulgation of the decision, given complainant's prior absence.
• Denial of Misconduct: The intemperate language used in the comment was a justified response to complainant's alleged fabrications, and the car incident was merely a safety warning.

• Gross Ignorance of Procedure: Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of procedure for ordering the arrest and detention of complainant counsel who failed to attend the promulgation of judgment.
• Gross Misconduct: Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct for using abusive and offensive language against complainant in his comment.

• Gross Ignorance of Procedure: Respondent is guilty. The legal basis invoked by respondent, Section 14, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court, applies only to material witnesses, not to counsel. Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 120 does not require the presence of counsel during promulgation; if the accused fails to appear, the promulgation is made by recording the judgment and serving a copy. The proper procedure for dealing with complainant's absence was to issue a show-cause order for indirect contempt, not an outright order of arrest. The arrest violated complainant's right to due process and Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Gross Misconduct: Respondent is guilty. The use of abusive and offensive language in his comment violated Rule 8.01, Canon 8 and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This violation is aggravated by respondent's prior admonition for using intemperate language in a previous administrative case.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure — A judge's failure to apply basic legal procedures, such as ordering the arrest of counsel without legal basis and without affording due process, constitutes gross ignorance of the law or procedure, a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Judicial Temperance and Courtesy — Judges must be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, avoiding the attitude that litigants are made for the courts rather than the courts for the litigants, pursuant to Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• "It does not need a keen intellect to hold that the rule relied upon by the respondent cannot be used as basis for the detention of complainant since he is a counsel and not a material witness to a case." — Emphasizing the inapplicability of the material witness rule to a defense counsel.
• "What respondent judge should have done under the circumstances obtaining at the time he issued the order of arrest of complainant was first to issue an order directing him (Seludo), within a reasonable time, to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt of court and, reset the promulgation of the decision to some other time at the convenience of the court." — Outlining the proper procedure for dealing with a counsel's unexcused absence from promulgation.

• Judge Antonio J. Fineza vs. Romeo P. Aruelo, A.M. No. P-01-1522 — Prior case where respondent was admonished for using intemperate language and casting the Court in bad light. Followed to establish the aggravating circumstance of repetition.
• Lim vs. Judge Antonio J. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1705 — Prior case where respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct for failing to execute a final judgment. Followed to establish a pattern of misconduct.
• Prosecutor Ruiz v. Judge Bringas, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1266 — Cited for the classification of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law as serious administrative charges.

• Section 14, Rule 119, Rules of Court — Governs bail to secure the appearance of a material witness. Misapplied by respondent; inapplicable to counsel.
• Section 6, Rule 120, Rules of Court — Governs the promulgation of judgment. Does not require the presence of counsel; provides that if the accused fails to appear, promulgation is made by recording the judgment and serving a copy.
• Rule 3.04, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers. Violated by respondent.
• Rule 8.01, Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from using abusive, offensive, or improper language. Violated by respondent's comment.
• Rule 10.03, Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates observance of rules of procedure. Violated by respondent.
• Section 8, Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court — Classifies gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law or procedure as serious charges.
• Section 11, Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court — Provides sanctions for serious charges, including a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga.