FACTS:

Spouses Villa Macasasa and Gertrudes Lanutan filed a complaint against Hon. Fausto H. Imbing, the Presiding Judge of Branch 18 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City. The complainants claimed that they were parties in two civil cases filed in 1980 before RTC Branch 18. On February 10, 1994, a decision was rendered dismissing one case and ordering the defendant in the other case to vacate the premises and pay the plaintiffs' attorney's fees and expenses. On August 6, 1996, the plaintiffs received an Order denying their motion to quash execution and granting a motion to levy and attach their properties. Additionally, a transfer certificate of title and tax declaration were forfeited in favor of the defendant, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs a sum of money as attorney's fees and expenses. The plaintiffs alleged that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing these orders. They also claimed that the respondent judge issued a warrant of arrest without a hearing and that they were forced to sell their land at public auction due to the respondent judge's order awarding bill of costs. The respondent judge denied the allegations, explaining that the appeal had been dismissed and that his actions were lawful and justified. The respondent judge's retirement and request for retirement benefits were also mentioned.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the orders in question.

2. Whether or not the complainants were denied due process.

RULING:

1. The Court finds that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the orders in question. The orders were issued in accordance with the applicable rules and were within the respondent judge's authority. The "Bill of Costs" included in the Order dated August 6, 1996 was considered as a reasonable claim for unrealized income and incidental expenses incurred. The issuance of the warrant of arrest was in pursuance to the rules on indirect contempt. The respondent judge's actions were not arbitrary or capricious.

2. The Court finds that the complainants were not denied due process. They were furnished a copy of the "Bill of Costs" and were given the opportunity to oppose the motion to levy and attach their properties. The complainants' awareness of the document was shown by their motion to quash the writ of execution. Therefore, they were not deprived of their right to be heard.

PRINCIPLES:

• A judge does not commit grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law when he issues orders in accordance with the applicable rules and within his authority.

• Due process requires that a party be given the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of their case. However, being furnished a copy of a document and having the opportunity to oppose it satisfies the requirements of due process.