A.M. No. 1098-CFI. May 31, 1976. LUDOVICO AJENO, complainant, vs. HON. SANCHO Y. INSERTO, Judge of Court of First Instance of Iloilo, City of Iloilo, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Ludovico Ajeno was convicted by respondent Judge Sancho Y. Inserto of the crime of less serious physical injuries. The judgment sentenced him to four months of arresto mayor and ordered him to indemnify the victim, Solomon Banagua, Jr., in the sum of P200.00. The dispositive portion further imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency for the payment of this indemnity. Ajeno filed an administrative complaint, charging the judge with ignorance of the law for ordering subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of a civil indemnity, which he claimed violated the constitutional provision that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt.”
In his comment, respondent Judge admitted his error in imposing the subsidiary imprisonment. He explained that he realized his oversight only upon the case’s appeal. He asserted he had no intention to oppress the complainant and that, at the time of the decision, he was relying on an old doctrine distinguishing between contractual debts and civil liabilities arising from crimes. He expressed that had counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, he would have rectified the mistake immediately.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for his error in imposing subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of civil indemnity.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge administratively liable but mitigated the penalty. The ruling clarifies two distinct legal principles. First, the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt applies only to debts arising from contracts (ex contractu) and not to civil liabilities arising from crimes (ex delicto). Therefore, the complainant’s argument on this constitutional point was erroneous. Second, and crucially, the judge’s error lay in violating the specific provisions of Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5465. The amendment explicitly provides that subsidiary personal liability applies only for non-payment of a fine imposed in a criminal case, not for non-payment of civil indemnity. By ordering subsidiary imprisonment for the P200.00 indemnity, the judge demonstrated a failure to keep abreast of and correctly apply the amendatory law.
The Court emphasized that while judges are generally not disciplined for mere errors of judgment, they have a duty to be conversant with the law, including its latest amendments. The judge’s negligence in this case caused the complainant unnecessary trouble and expense in pursuing an appeal. However, significant mitigating factors were present: the judge’s frank admission of error, his lack of ill motive or bad faith as shown by his reduction of the original charge from frustrated murder, and his unblemished 36-year record in government service. Consequently, the Court did not impose removal but instead admonished Judge Inserto to be more cautious in applying the law, warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.