G.R. No. L-24139 - AUGUST 1967 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-24139August 31, 1967 Commissioner of Immigration vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-23406August 31, 1967 In re: O Ku Phuan. O Ku Phuan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22810August 31, 1967 Firemen's Insurance Co. vs. , et al. G.R. No. L-22684August 31, 1967 Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. vs. Woodworks, Inc. G.R. No. L-22618August 31, 1967 Manila Port Service, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-22536August 31, 1967 Domingo V. Austria vs. Antonio C. Masaquel G.R. No. L-22047August 31, 1967 Municipality of San Juan vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority G.R. No. L-20708August 31, 1967 In re: Felimon Tse & Alice Tse vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20529August 31, 1967 Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Gaspar Duarte G.R. No. L-20528August 31, 1967 Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Urbano Debevar G.R. No. L-20527August 31, 1967 Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Jesus Arpa G.R. No. L-18877August 31, 1967 Juan P. Enriquez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-18778 and L-18779August 31, 1967 United Seamen's Union of the Phil. vs. Davao Shipowners Association, et al. A.C. No. 516August 30, 1967 Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. vs. Esteban Degamo G.R. No. L-26532August 30, 1967 Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-25171August 30, 1967 National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union (PAFLU) vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-24066August 30, 1967 Domestic Insurance Co. of the Phil. vs. Manila Railroad Co. G.R. No. L-22301August 30, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Mapa G.R. No. L-22260August 30, 1967 Teodorico C. Quiocho vs. Bernardo P. Abrera, et al. G.R. No. L-22108August 30, 1967 Government of the Republic of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-22072August 30, 1967 Alfonso Bun Ramos, et al. vs. Emiliano Condez, et al. G.R. No. L-21963August 30, 1967 National Development Co. vs. Roberta Rongavilla, et al. G.R. No. L-21501August 30, 1967 Manila Club Employees Union vs. Manila Club, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-21467August 30, 1967 Rio y Compania vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21448August 30, 1967 Poblete Construction Co. vs. Judith Asiain, et al. G.R. No. L-21011August 30, 1967 Isabel Ocampo vs. Ignacio Domalanta, et al. G.R. No. L-20991August 30, 1967 Rufino Cielos, et al. vs. Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-23561August 28, 1967 Alfonso Daran vs. Dominador Angco, et al. G.R. No. L-27206August 26, 1967 In re: Andres Culanag Andres Culanag vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-24383August 26, 1967 Equitable Insurance and Casualty Co., Inc. vs. Smith, Bell and Co., (Philippines) Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-23617August 26, 1967 Angelo King vs. Pablo Joe, et al. G.R. No. L-22348August 23, 1967 Gregorio Ramos, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-24031August 19, 1967 American Insurance Co. vs. Macondray and Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-21835August 19, 1967 Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Phil. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-21128August 19, 1967 In re: Ao San Ao San vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24614August 17, 1967 Julia de la Merced, et al. vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-23167August 17, 1967 In re: Lee Liong Sian George Que Liong Sian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-22516August 17, 1967 Litton and Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22042August 17, 1967 Dionisia Guingon, et al. vs. Iluminado del Monte, et al. G.R. No. L-21806August 17, 1967 In re: Oscar Sia Oliva Domingo Dy Oliva, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21013August 17, 1967 Universal Corn Products, Inc., et al. vs. Rice and Corn Board, et al. G.R. No. L-19707August 17, 1967 Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-24114August 16, 1967 People's Homesite and Housing Corp., et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. A.C. No. 407August 15, 1967 In re: Jose Avanceña. G.R. No. L-27017August 15, 1967 Pacifico M. Braganza vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-22821August 15, 1967 Asuncion Conui-Omega vs. Cesar Samson G.R. No. L-22380August 15, 1967 Fermin Sare vs. Timoteo Y. Aseron G.R. No. L-22029August 15, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Jaravata @ Enso, et al. G.R. No. L-18805August 14, 1967 Board of Liquidators, et al. vs. Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, et al. G.R. No. L-24109August 10, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelia P. de Ocampo G.R. No. L-24103August 10, 1967 Beatriz G. Vda. de Dios vs. Leandro Balagot, et al. G.R. No. L-23558August 10, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Constantino, et al. G.R. No. L-23281August 10, 1967 Billy Millares vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. G.R. No. L-22966August 10, 1967 Fausto Mipalar vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-21902August 10, 1967 Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-21542August 10, 1967 In re: Joseph C. Go Yanko Joseph C. Go Yanko vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-21311August 10, 1967 In re: Cirilo Reyes Pelagia Puguid vs. Cirilo Reyes G.R. No. L-19531August 10, 1967 Clorox Company vs. Director of Patents, et al. G.R. No. L-22254August 8, 1967 Quiroco del Mar vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-20218August 8, 1967 Fortunato Halili vs. Maria Lloret, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Commissioner of Immigration vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. In re: O Ku Phuan. O Ku Phuan vs. Republic of the Philippines Firemen's Insurance Co. vs. , et al. Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc. vs. Woodworks, Inc. Manila Port Service, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Domingo V. Austria vs. Antonio C. Masaquel Municipality of San Juan vs. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority In re: Felimon Tse & Alice Tse vs. Republic of the Philippines Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Gaspar Duarte Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Urbano Debevar Vicente Y. Realiza vs. Jesus Arpa Juan P. Enriquez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. United Seamen's Union of the Phil. vs. Davao Shipowners Association, et al. Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. vs. Esteban Degamo Insurance Company of North America vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. National Brewery and Allied Industries Labor Union (PAFLU) vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. Domestic Insurance Co. of the Phil. vs. Manila Railroad Co. People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Mapa Teodorico C. Quiocho vs. Bernardo P. Abrera, et al. Government of the Republic of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Tizon, et al. Alfonso Bun Ramos, et al. vs. Emiliano Condez, et al. National Development Co. vs. Roberta Rongavilla, et al. Manila Club Employees Union vs. Manila Club, Inc., et al. Rio y Compania vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Poblete Construction Co. vs. Judith Asiain, et al. Isabel Ocampo vs. Ignacio Domalanta, et al. Rufino Cielos, et al. vs. Bacolod Murcia Milling Co., Inc. Alfonso Daran vs. Dominador Angco, et al. In re: Andres Culanag Andres Culanag vs. Director of Prisons Equitable Insurance and Casualty Co., Inc. vs. Smith, Bell and Co., (Philippines) Inc., et al. Angelo King vs. Pablo Joe, et al. Gregorio Ramos, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al. American Insurance Co. vs. Macondray and Co., Inc., et al. Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Phil. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. In re: Ao San Ao San vs. Republic of the Philippines Julia de la Merced, et al. vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, et al. In re: Lee Liong Sian George Que Liong Sian vs. Republic of the Philippines Litton and Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs Dionisia Guingon, et al. vs. Iluminado del Monte, et al. In re: Oscar Sia Oliva Domingo Dy Oliva, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines Universal Corn Products, Inc., et al. vs. Rice and Corn Board, et al. Philippine Acetylene Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. People's Homesite and Housing Corp., et al. vs. Eulogio Mencias, et al. In re: Jose Avanceña. Pacifico M. Braganza vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Asuncion Conui-Omega vs. Cesar Samson Fermin Sare vs. Timoteo Y. Aseron People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Jaravata @ Enso, et al. Board of Liquidators, et al. vs. Heirs of Maximo M. Kalaw, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelia P. de Ocampo Beatriz G. Vda. de Dios vs. Leandro Balagot, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Constantino, et al. Billy Millares vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. Fausto Mipalar vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. Manila Railroad Company vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. In re: Joseph C. Go Yanko Joseph C. Go Yanko vs. Republic of the Philippines In re: Cirilo Reyes Pelagia Puguid vs. Cirilo Reyes Clorox Company vs. Director of Patents, et al. Quiroco del Mar vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corp., et al. Fortunato Halili vs. Maria Lloret, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-24139             August 31, 1967

COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION,petitioner,
vs.
HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI,
MERCEDES TOBIANO CO, JOSE TOBIANO and JUSTO TOBIANO,respondents.

In re Contempt Proceedings against HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A. A. Ibarra and Solicitor B. P. Pardo for petitioner.
J. C. Yuseco for respondents.
Respondent Judge for his own behalf.

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

On motion of the Solicitor General to declare respondent judge in contempt of court. Respondent judge filed his return thereto. The motion was heard on oral arguments, submitted for resolution. The facts from which the contempt proceedings stemmed are now to be related.

On September 27, 1962, a decision was rendered by the Board of Commissioners of Immigration, excluding respondent Mercedes Tobiano Co and her alleged children, including respondents Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano, as aliens not properly documented for admission, and directing their return to the port from whence they came or to the country of which they are nationals. A warrant of exclusion was issued. Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano were thereupon arrested.

Offshoots of the decision and warrant just mentioned are two cases before the Court of First Instance of Manila, both entitled "Mercedes Tobiano Co, et al. vs. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al.", brought primarily against the Acting Commissioner of Immigration. The first, Civil Case No. 58624, is forcertiorarilodged by private respondents and others¹to annul said decision of the Board of Commissioners; the second is Civil Case No. 58782, for a writ ofhabeas corpusfiled by Mercedes Tobiano Co, on behalf of her sons, respondents Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano.

In Case 58782, private respondents moved for the grant of bail to Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano. On February 5, 1965, respondent judge granted their motion and directed their release upon approval of a P5,000.00-bond for each. On the same day, pursuant to a surety bond in the amount of P10,000.00 (P5,000.00 for each), respondent judge directed the Commissioner of Immigration or the officer in charge of the Immigration Detention Station to promptly release Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano.

The next day, February 6, 1965, the Commissioner of Immigration came to this Court in the present proceedings oncertiorarito annul respondent judge's orders of February 5, 1965 in Case 58782; and on injunction — preliminary and perpetual — to prevent enforcement thereof, and to restrain the judge from otherwise taking cognizance of, conducting further proceedings in, or in any other manner assuming jurisdiction over, said case.

On February 10, 1965, this Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondent judge, thus:

Following a precedent,²this Court, on August 27, 1965, amended the preceding injunctive order of February 10, 1965 —

The foregoing injunction notwithstanding, respondent judge, on January 6, 1967, promulgated a joint decision in Cases 58624 and 58782 earlier mentioned, the dispositive portion of which reads:

The foregoing judgment triggered the present contempt proceedings.1äwphï1.ñët

1. Respondent judge's main defense, distilled into a few words, is this: Since this Court, by resolution of August 27, 1965, granted bail to petitioners Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano, the injunctive order of February 10, 1965 has lost its prohibitory effect and was reduced tofunctus officio. The lack of validity of this pose is at once apparent.

The import of the injunctive order of February 10, 1965 need not be essayed. The terms employed therein are clear; the mandate, brief and authoritative. Two separate and distinct acts are there forbidden:first, respondent judge was enjoined from enforcing his orders of February 5, 1965 (granting the motion to release Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano upon approval of the bond fixed; and directing release upon bond filed); andsecond, respondent judge was prohibited from "otherwise taking cognizance of or in any manner assuming jurisdiction or [conducting] further proceedings [in] the case No. 58782 (Mercedes Tobiano Co, etc. vs. Hon. Martiniano P. Vivo, etc., et al.)."

Unquestionably,all that respondent judge was allowed to doby the amendatory resolution of August 27, 1965 was to grant bail — in a considerably increased amount. This is no license for the judge to decide that Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano may remain in the Philippines as citizens thereof. The import of his decision is to render ineffective the bond requirement for stay. For, a citizen needs no bond just to remain in his own country. The second portion of the writ of February 10, 1965 remained as unaffected by said amendatory resolution of August 27, 1965. That specific portion is intact, undiminished in its peremptory command. It is too much of a wrench to say that simply because our August 27, 1965 resolution allowing release on bail is in line with respondent judge's similar order of February 5, 1965 in Case 58782, said judge was at liberty to decide the case aforesaid. Respondent judge cannot brush aside as innocuous the fact that the resolution of August 27, 1965 made it abundantly clear that "[s]uch release on bail shall be subject to the decision to be promulgated in this litigation."³Nor could an inference be justifiably drawn that the resolution of August 27, 1965 was in the nature of a dismissal of thecertioraripetition before this Court. It is not. The petition herein still stands. The case here remains pending. And, the proscription against further proceeding with Case No. 58782 subsists.

Clearly then, the joint decision rendered by respondent judge in Cases 58624 and 58782 is an open defiance of the directive of this Court. It violates the injunction.

2. As we pierce the shard of respondent judge's plea of lack of intention to defy or disobey, we perceive a subtle attempt on his part to sidetrack the injunction. We note that in his answer to the motion for contempt, he deftly avoided any mention of thecontentsof the injunction of February 10, 1965. And then, as he decided Case 58782 forhabeas corpusjointly with Case 58624 forcertiorari, he refrained from reciting in the dispositive part any mention of Case 58782, apparently in an effort to justify a semblance of lack of disobedience to the injunctive order. And this, upon his claim that, after all, "there is no injunctive order from this Honorable Court" insofar as the other case — Case 58624 — is concerned. But, no amount of judicial legerdemain will bring about a conclusion other than that Case 58782, by the terms of the joint judgment, is also decided therein. For, the judge declared that the two Tobianos are entitled to remain in the Philippines as citizens thereof. And, perforce, the petition forhabeas corpusin Case 58782 was there granted; the Tobianos were automatically released; they can no longer be arrested for deportation. It is well to remember that "[v]iolation of a court order by subterfuge is as much contempt of court as violation by more direct action."⁴

3. As early as 1903,Weigall vs. Shuster, 11 Phil. 340, 354, has reminded us that "maintenance of public order and the existence of the commonwealth itself, depend upon the enforcement of the mandates of the courts and require prompt obedience to them, not only by private citizens, but in a special manner by the Government officers who are particularly charged with a knowledge of the law and with the duty of obeying it." Respondent is a judge of a superior court. But his official character will not insulate him from punishment for insubordination of an order of the highest Tribunal of the land. When he took his oath of office as a judge, he swore that he would "obey the laws, legal orders, and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities." Canon 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics should have reminded him that "[t]he judge should be studiously careful himself to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others." As Mr. Justice Malcolm once said: "It would seem hardly necessary to add that judges should respect the orders and decisions of an appellate court."⁵A fundamental principle in our democratic system of government is that no official, no matter how high, is above the law.⁶It is in this context that we say that respondent judge is accountable for the contempt committed by him.⁷

4. Courts are inherently empowered to punish for contempt to the end that they may enforce their authority, preserve their integrity, maintain their dignity, and insure the effectiveness of the administration of justice.⁸

Indirect contempt — as is the case here — is provided in Section 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court,viz:

The disobedience which the law punishes as constructive contempt implies wilfulness. For, at bottom, contempt is a willful disregard or disobedience.⁹The act of respondent judge complained of comes easily within the coverage of this rule.

In assessing the penalty, however, we are to be guided by the salutary rule that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle.¹⁰

Wherefore, finding respondent Judge Gaudencio Cloribel guilty of indirect contempt, we hereby sentence him to pay a fine of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00).

Let a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honorable, The Secretary of Justice.

So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Footnotes