PROSECUTOR
JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN
A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2176 April 20,
2009
FACTS:
In a Decision dated 18 December 2006,
respondent Judge Belen found complainant Baculi guilty of direct contempt of
court for making scurrilous and contumacious statements in the latter’s Urgent
Reiterative Motion. Complainant Baculi was again cited for indirect contempt of
court, in another Decision dated 7 June 2007 and sentenced to pay a fine of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) and to suffer imprisonment of three (3)
days.
Complainant Baculi filed a Notice of Appeal
with Motion and Manifestation dated 5 July 2007 praying that the execution of
the decision finding him guilty of indirect contempt be suspended pending his
appeal. Respondent Judge Belen, in an Order dated 6 August 2007, directed
complainant Baculi to post, within two (2) days from receipt thereof, a
supersedeas bond of Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (₱35,000.00) in order to stay
the execution of the Decisions dated 18 December 2006 and 7 June 2007.
Complainant Baculi moved for a reduction of
the bond but the same was treated as a mere scrap of paper for failure to
comply with the notice of hearing under Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Judge Belen, in an Order dated 20
August 2007, directed the clerk of court to issue the Writ of Execution and a
Warrant of Arrest to implement the decision of 18 December 2006 and 7 June 207.
Said order also directed the Philippine National Police to assist the branch
sheriff in the enforcement of the Warrant.
Complainant moved to set aside the Order
dated 20 August 2007. In his twin Orders of 24 March 2008, respondent Judge
Belen declared that the Decisions dated 18 December 2006 and 7 June 2007 are
final and executory. On 28 April 2008, complainant Baculi filed a Motion for
Reconsideration and to Set Aside Decisions of December 18, 2006 and June 7,
2007 and all Orders of March 24, 2008.
Thereafter, complainant filed the instant
Complaint, asseverating, among others, that respondent violated Section 7, Rule
71 of the Rules of Court and prevailing jurisprudence in holding him liable for
indirect contempt because the use of contemptuous language in a pleading, if
submitted before the same judge, would constitute only direct contempt of
court; that complainant's conviction had no basis because the pleadings in
question did not contain any vulgar, vile or unethical statements that would be
an affront to the dignity of the court; that the supersedeas bond of ₱35,000.00
fixed by the court to stay the execution was excessive, confiscatory and
unconscionable; and that respondent was induced by revenge and ill motive, since
it was complainant who indicted respondent in a libel case filed by one
Prosecutor Ma. Victoria Sunega-Lagman, docketed as Criminal Case No. 15332-SP,
now pending before the RTC, Branch 32, San Pablo City. Thus, complainant
charges respondent with abuse of the court’s power to cite persons for
contempt.
ISSUE:
WON
the Order citing Complainant of indirect contempt is proper.
RULING:
No, the Court finds the respondent guilty of
gross ignorance of the law for citing complainant for indirect contempt.
In
Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in
Crim. Cases Q-97-69655 to 56 for Child Abuse, the Court held:
Contempt
of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such
conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into
disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their
witnesses during litigation.
There
are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct contempt and indirect
contempt. Direct contempt is committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior
in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness,
or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.
Indirect contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed out of
the presence of the court. Any improper conduct tending, directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice would
constitute indirect contempt.
A
pleading containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements submitted
before a court or judge where the proceedings are pending constitutes direct
contempt, because it is equivalent to misbehavior committed in the presence of
or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. In
this regard, respondent committed a serious blunder when he cited complainant
for indirect contempt.
Respondent
also failed to follow the proper procedure under Section 4 of Rule 71 of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, which particularly provides:
SEC. 4. How
proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated
motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order
or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt.
In
all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified
petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or
papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for
filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the
contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in
the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition
shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its
discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal
action for joint hearing and decision.
As
correctly observed by the OCA, there was no order issued by respondent for the
charge of indirect contempt against complainant to be docketed separately;
neither was there an order that the said charge be consolidated with the
principal action. In sum, respondent simply incorporated or integrated the
proceedings for indirect contempt with the principal case. This fortifies the
OCA’s finding that respondent is grossly ignorant of basic procedure. When the
law is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Rules of Court, not to
know, or to act as if one does not know the same, constitutes gross ignorance
of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment