DeJesusvs.

JudgeDilag
A.M.No.RTJ051921September30,2005
Topic:CourtsJurisdictiontoissueHoldDepartureOrders
Doctrine: Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, confers upon the
Commissioner of the BID, to the exclusion of the courts of justice, the power and
authority to enforce its provisions, specifically the admission of foreigners to this
country.
ER:
HarlinghausenandDeJesuswerespouses.Thereafter,Harlinghausenfiledfornullityof
marriage with an Urgent ExParte Motion to Preserve Properties to be Collated and
anotherExParteMotiontoDirecttheBureauofImmigrationandDeportationtoallow
himentryintothecountrysohecanprosecutehispetitionfornullityofmarriage.De
Jesusfiledamotiontodismissthecasefornullityonthegroundofimpropervenuebut
this was denied. Judge Dilag granted both ExParte Motions without observing due
processofnoticeandhearing,promptingDeJesustofileanadministrativecaseagainst
JudgeDilagforgrossignoranceofthelaw.
Issue:Whetherthejudgeisguiltyofgrossignoranceofthelaw?
YES.WithrespecttotheExParteMotiondirecting theBIDtoallow Harlinghausen
entrytothecountry,JudgeDilagisgrosslyignorantofthelaw.JudgeDilagshowshis
ignoranceofthePhilippineImmigrationActof1940,asamended.Thislawconfersupon
theCommissioneroftheBID,totheexclusionofthecourtsofjustice,thepowerand
authority to enforce its provisions, specifically the admission of foreigners to this
country.
WithrespecttotheUrgentExParteMotiontoProtectPropertiestobeCollated,Judge
Dilagblatantlydisregardedtherequirementsfornoticeandhearing.Obviously,Judge
DilagdisregardedSections4(hearingofmotion),5(noticeofhearing)and6(proofof
service),Rule15ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.Insteadofdenyingthemotion
outrightforbeingmanifestlydefective,hegrantedthesame.Whilehesetthemotionfor
hearing,stillthethreedaynoticewasnotobserved,thusDeJesusfailedtoattendthe
hearing.Clearly,shewasdeprivedofherrighttodueprocess.
Facts:
DeJesuschargedJudgeDilagwithgrossignoranceofthelaw,issuingunjust
orders,abuseofauthorityandmisuseofcourtprocesses.
DeJesusallegedthatherhusband,WolfgangHarlinghausenfiledfornullityof
theirmarriagewiththeRTCofOlongapo
o HarlinghausenfiledanUrgentExParteMotiontoPreservePropertiesto
beCollated.
DeJesuswasservedsummonsandfiledamotiontodismissonthegroundof
impropervenue.ThiswasdeniedbyJudgeDilag
Judge Dilag then granted the Urgent ExParte to Preserve Properties to be
Collatedandplacingunderlegalcustodythepropertiesenumeratedtherein.The

RegisterofDeedsofTarlacwasdirectedtoannotatetheOrderonthe62land
titles allegedly purchased by De Jesus using her husbands money without
consent.
HarlinghausenfiledanotherExParteMotionprayingfortheissuanceofanOrder
directingtheBureauofImmigrationandDeportationtoallowhimtoenterthis
countryinordertoprosecutehispetitionfordeclarationofnullityofmarriage.
o JudgeDilaggrantedthis.
DeJesusthenfiledapetitionforcertiorariintheCAagainstJudgeDilagbecause
ofthegrantingofthetwoExParteMotionsanddenyingthemotiontodismiss.
o CAgrantedthecertiorariandrenderedthedecisionsvoidanddismissing
thecomplaintfornullityofmarriage.
HarlinghausenfiledamotionforreconsiderationbutitwasdeniedbytheCA.He
thenfiledapetitionforreviewoncertiorariintheSCbutitwasdeniedforfailure
toshowthattheCAcommittedreversibleerror.
DeJesusnowcontendsthatJudgeDilagis:
o 1) ignorant of the law and abused his authority in granting
HarlinghausensUrgent ExParte Motion to Preserve Properties to be
Collated. Themotionlacksthenoticeofhearingtobeserveduponthe
adversepartythree(3)daysbeforethehearing;andproofofserviceofthe
motionupontheadverseparty
o 2)abusedhisauthorityandmisusedcourtprocessesinissuingtheOrder
directingtheBIDtoallowHarlinghausentoenterthiscountry.

JudgeDilagscomment:hedidnotdisregardthebasicproceduralrules.Although
theUrgentExParteMotiontoPreservePropertiestobeCollatedlacksanoticeof
hearing,neverthelesshesetthemotionforhearingtoenabletheadverseparty,De
Jesus,toparticipatethereinortofileanopposition.Besides,theRulesallowhim
toactuponanexpartemotionrequiring"quickaction,"likethemotionbefore
him. There was urgency considering that the conjugal funds are being
misappropriatedbyDeJesus.Moreover,heconductedclarificatoryhearing.At
anyrate,hisquestionedOrderisnottaintedwith"badfaithorfraud."
o With respect to the Order directing the BID to allow entry to
Harlinghausen, Judge Dilag explained that he did not overstep his
jurisdiction.HerecognizedtheauthorityoftheBID.Infact,hestatedin
hisquestionedOrderthatitiswithoutprejudicetotheauthorityoftheBID
overHarlinghausen.

Issue:WhetherJudgeDilagisguiltyofgrossignaoranceofthelaw?
Held: WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Renato J. Dilag is hereby found GUILTY of gross
ignorance of the law and is ordered to pay a FINE of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P30,000.00)uponnotice.

Ratio:
WithrespecttothefirstUrgentExParteMotion(ProtectPropertiestobeCollated):Judge
Dilagblatantlydisregardedtherequirementsfornoticeandhearing(notrelevant)
Obviously,JudgeDilagdisregardedSections4,5and6,Rule15ofthe1997Rulesof
CivilProcedure.Insteadofdenyingthemotionoutrightforbeingmanifestlydefective,he
grantedthesame.Whilehesetthemotionforhearing,stillthethreedaynoticewasnot
observed,thusDeJesusfailedtoattendthehearing.Clearly,shewasdeprivedofher
righttodueprocess.
Whenajudgefailstoconsidersobasicandelementalarule,alaw,oraprincipleinthe
dischargeofhisduties,heiseithertooincompetentandundeservingofhisposition,oris
tooviciousthattheoversightoromissionwasdeliberatelydoneinbadfaithandingrave
abuseofjudicialauthority.Inbothinstances,thejudgesdismissalisinorder.Hisfailure
toaffordcomplainanttheopportunitytobeheardasa matterofdue process oflaw
deservesadministrativesanction.
WithrespecttothesecondExParteMotiondirectingtheBIDtoallowHarlinghausenentryto
thecountry:JudgeDilagisgrosslyignorantofthelaw.(RELEVANT)
JudgeDilagshowshisignoranceofthePhilippineImmigrationActof1940,asamended.
ThislawconfersupontheCommissioneroftheBID,totheexclusionofthecourtsof
justice,thepowerandauthoritytoenforceitsprovisions,specificallytheadmissionof
foreignerstothiscountry.
We sustain the observation of the Court of Appeals that the Order of Judge Dilag
directingtheBIDtoallowtheentryofHarlinghausentothiscountrywouldeffectively
countermandtheorderofdetentionissuedbytheBIDand"constitutesanintrusioninto
its prerogatives as regards the entry, admission, exclusion, registration, repatriation,
monitoringanddeportationofforeignerswithinournationalterritory."
Inhisdesperateattempttoevadeadministrativesanction,respondentjudgemaintainsthat
sincecomplainanthasalreadyresortedtoaproperremedy,i.e.,byfilingapetitionfor
certiorariwiththeCourtofAppealsquestioninghistwinOrders,sheisbarredfromfiling
theinstantadministrativecomplaintinvolvingthesameOrders.Hecitedourrulingin
Hilario vs. Ocampo III, 371 SCRA 260 (2001) that "where some judicial means is
available,anadministrativecomplaintisnottheappropriateremedyforanactofajudge
deemedaberrantorirregular."
WhileitistruethattheCourtofAppealshassetasidethequestionedtwinOrders,the
fact remains that respondent judge has shown his ignorance of both substantive and
procedurallawswhichwarrantsanadministrativesanction.
TheCourtrecognizesthat"noteveryjudicialerrorbespeaksignoranceofthelawand
that,ifcommittedingoodfaith,doesnotwarrantadministrativesanction,butonlyin
caseswithintheparametersoftolerablemisjudgment.Where,however,theprocedureis
sosimpleandthefactssoevidentastobebeyondpermissiblemarginsoferror,asinthis
case,tostillerrthereonamountstoignoranceofthelaw."
Inthis case, JudgeDilagdisplayeda deplorable deficiencyinhis grasp of the basic
principles governing motions, specifically, the threeday notice rule and the requisite
proofofservice.Also,heshowedhisutterlackofknowledgeandunderstandingofour
immigrationlaws.
Asanadvocateofjusticeandavisiblerepresentationofthelaw,ajudgeisexpectedto
keepabreastwithandbeproficientintheapplicationandinterpretationofthelaw.When

thelawissufficientlybasic,aswhatisinvolvedinthepresentcase,ajudgeowesittohis
officetosimplyapplyit;anythinglessthanthatwouldbegrossignoranceofthelaw.
InTugotv.Coliflores,weheldthatjudicialcompetencedemandsthatjudgesshouldbe
proficientinbothproceduralandsubstantiveaspectsofthelaw.Anythinglessthanthis
strictstandardwouldsubjectthemtoadministrativesanction.
It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles. The Code of
Judicial Conduct, in fact, enjoins judges to "be faithful to the law and maintain
professionalcompetence."
UnderSection1,Rule140oftheRevisedRulesofCourtontheDisciplineofJustices
andJudges,grossignoranceofthelawisclassifiedasaseriouschargepunishableby
either dismissal from the service, suspension from office or a fine of more than
P20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00.
WebelievethatanimpositionofP30,000.00fineuponrespondentjudgeisinorder.