G.R. No. 43491 - DECEMBER 1990 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 43491December 26, 1990Teodoro V. Cabilan vs. Jose R. Ramolete G.R. No. 46210December 26, 1990Ricardo Villaflor vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 61527December 26, 1990Vicente Gerardo vs. Florentino De La Peña G.R. No. 70556December 26, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Mario Ablao G.R. No. 77668December 26, 1990Eufracio Rojas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 81039December 26, 1990Investment and Underwriting Corp. of the Phil. vs. Comptronics Philippines, Inc., et al. G.R. No. 85157December 26, 1990Francisco Jose vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 88336December 26, 1990Republic of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 92625December 26, 1990Jose Orda vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 48535-36December 21, 1990Koh Tieck Heng vs. The People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 49454December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Monteiro G.R. No. 49588December 21, 1990Diong Bi Chu vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 63753-54December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Beringuel G.R. No. 76519December 21, 1990Timoteo Pojas vs. Mercedes Gozo-dalole G.R. Nos. 78551-52December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Rolando Marcedonio G.R. No. 78854December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Salvador V. Lutañez G.R. No. 79526December 21, 1990National Asso. of Free Trade Unions vs. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers Union G.R. No. 80276December 21, 1990Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. 83257-58December 21, 1990OSIAS Academy vs. Department of Labor and Employment G.R. No. 83696December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Dante Bartulay G.R. No. 84918December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Ed Fernandez Avila G.R. No. 87807December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Isagani Deslate G.R. No. 89407December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Isabelo P. Sanchez G.R. Nos. 89682-83December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Herico G.R. No. 91513December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Geronimo Goles G.R. No. 43659December 21, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Felicidad Carandang Villalon G.R. No. 46198December 20, 1990Domingo Reyes vs. Serafin E. Camilon G.R. No. 53556December 20, 1990Lilia Aguirre vs. Court of First Instance of Leyte, et al. G.R. No. 72019December 20, 1990World Machine Enterprises vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 81835December 20, 1990Romeo J. Ordoñez vs. Alfredo J. Gustilo G.R. No. 82002December 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Francisco De Guzman G.R. Nos. 86492-94December 20, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Leopoldo Montante G.R. No. 88114December 20, 1990Pentagon Security vs. Vicente T. Jimenez G.R. No. 89618December 20, 1990Raul S. Manglapus vs. Andres E. Matias G.R. Nos. 92029-30December 20, 1990Nicanor G. De Guzman, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 93394December 20, 1990FNCB Finance vs. Napoleon Estavillo G.R. No. 44167December 19, 1990Julita Francisco vs. Crispin V. Bautista G.R. Nos. 88710-13December 19, 1990Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc. G.R. No. 91025December 19, 1990Union of Filipro Employees vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. 95478December 19, 1990Eduardo Acop vs. National Labor Relations Commission A.M. No. RTJ-89-380December 19, 1990Efren Javier vs. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. G.R. No. 83530December 18, 1990Cristito R. Austria vs. The People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. 93867December 18, 1990Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. vs. Haydee B. Yorac G.R. Nos. 95203-05December 18, 1990Ernesto Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board G.R. No. 95263December 18, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Juvenal Kyamko A.C. No. 2756December 18, 1990Prudential Bank vs. Benjamin M. Grecia G.R. No. 78623December 17, 1990Ofelia P. Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees G.R. No. 31688December 17, 1990Director of Lands, et al. vs. Juan P. Aquino G.R. No. 68514December 17, 1990Traders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 71589December 17, 1990Cagayan De Oro Coliseum, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor and Employment G.R. No. 76303December 17, 1990Director of Lands vs. Francisco K. Redor G.R. No. 82374December 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto M. Avila G.R. No. 82495December 10, 1990Allied Banking Corporation vs. Sedfrey Ordoñez G.R. Nos. 84132-33December 10, 1990National Development Company, et al. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, et al. G.R. No. 85531December 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Amando Tasarra G.R. No. 89988December 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Lydia Rama G.R. No. 91041December 10, 1990Jose A. Saddul, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. P-86-32December 10, 1990Alfredo Llanes vs. Gaudioso Borja G.R. No. 44749December 10, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Melvin S. Giron G.R. No. 50661December 10, 1990Ruben Delfin, et al. vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. 55361December 10, 1990Teofilo Ercillo vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 55613December 10, 1990Ernesto Dichoso vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 56620December 10, 1990Filipinas Mills, Inc. vs. Abelardo M. Dayrit G.R. No. 69863-65December 10, 1990Lino Brocka vs. Juan Ponce Enrile G.R. No. 74762December 10, 1990Commercial Motors Corporation vs. Commissioners, NLRC, Second Division G.R. No. 78163December 10, 1990Angelina P. Santiago vs. Deputy Executive Secretary G.R. No. 79962December 10, 1990Lucio R. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 80397December 10, 1990S & A Gaisano Inc., vs. Vicente A. Hidalgo G.R. No. 82215December 10, 1990Antipaz P. Presco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 30616December 10, 1990Eufracio D. Rojas vs. Constancio B. Maglana G.R. No. 36827December 10, 1990Director of Forest Administration vs. Ramon C. Fernandez G.R. No. 58668December 4, 1990Santiago Escarte, Jr. vs. Office of the President of the Phil. G.R. No. 71929December 4, 1990Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 74577December 4, 1990Consolacion Villanueva vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. 80505December 4, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Mario L. Tandoy G.R. No. 80791December 4, 1990People’s Financing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 86586December 4, 1990National Irrigation Administration vs. Teodoro P. Regino G.R. No. 86889December 4, 1990Luz Farms vs. Sec. of the Dept. of Agrarian Reform G.R. No. 88177December 4, 1990Dolores A. Paredes vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 93054December 4, 1990Alexander P. Ordillo, et al. vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. 32945December 3, 1990Mariano T. Nasser vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 39430December 3, 1990Francisco Manlapaz vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 55466December 3, 1990Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 78778December 3, 1990Leonida Coronado vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 79560December 3, 1990Andres E. Ditan vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Administrator G.R. No. 80904December 3, 1990Baltazar Pantig vs. Venancio Baltazar G.R. No. 82115December 3, 1990People of the Philippines vs. Romeo B. Ortiz G.R. No. 84884December 3, 1990Eulalio M. Ruiz vs. Doroteo N. Caneba G.R. No. 87264December 3, 1990Mariano Dinglasan vs. Maria Alicia M. Austria G.R. No. 89545December 3, 1990Rolando Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals, et al. UDK No. 9864December 3, 1990Rufina Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Teodoro V. Cabilan vs. Jose R. RamoleteRicardo Villaflor vs. Court of AppealsVicente Gerardo vs. Florentino De La PeñaPeople of the Philippines vs. Mario AblaoEufracio Rojas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Investment and Underwriting Corp. of the Phil. vs. Comptronics Philippines, Inc., et al.Francisco Jose vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Republic of the Phil. vs. SandiganbayanJose Orda vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Koh Tieck Heng vs. The People of the Philippines, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Salvador MonteiroDiong Bi Chu vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio BeringuelTimoteo Pojas vs. Mercedes Gozo-dalolePeople of the Philippines vs. Rolando MarcedonioPeople of the Philippines vs. Salvador V. LutañezNational Asso. of Free Trade Unions vs. Mainit Lumber Development Company Workers UnionHydro Resources Contractors Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al.OSIAS Academy vs. Department of Labor and EmploymentPeople of the Philippines vs. Dante BartulayPeople of the Philippines vs. Ed Fernandez AvilaPeople of the Philippines vs. Isagani DeslatePeople of the Philippines vs. Isabelo P. SanchezPeople of the Philippines vs. Benjamin HericoPeople of the Philippines vs. Geronimo GolesPeople of the Philippines vs. Felicidad Carandang VillalonDomingo Reyes vs. Serafin E. CamilonLilia Aguirre vs. Court of First Instance of Leyte, et al.World Machine Enterprises vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Romeo J. Ordoñez vs. Alfredo J. GustiloPeople of the Philippines vs. Francisco De GuzmanPeople of the Philippines vs. Leopoldo MontantePentagon Security vs. Vicente T. JimenezRaul S. Manglapus vs. Andres E. MatiasNicanor G. De Guzman, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.FNCB Finance vs. Napoleon EstavilloJulita Francisco vs. Crispin V. BautistaUnion of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle Philippines, Inc.Union of Filipro Employees vs. National Labor Relations CommissionEduardo Acop vs. National Labor Relations CommissionEfren Javier vs. Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr.Cristito R. Austria vs. The People of the Philippines, et al.Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. vs. Haydee B. YoracErnesto Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory BoardPeople of the Philippines vs. Juvenal KyamkoPrudential Bank vs. Benjamin M. GreciaOfelia P. Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of TrusteesDirector of Lands, et al. vs. Juan P. AquinoTraders Royal Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Cagayan De Oro Coliseum, Inc. vs. Minister of Labor and EmploymentDirector of Lands vs. Francisco K. RedorPeople of the Philippines vs. Ernesto M. AvilaAllied Banking Corporation vs. Sedfrey OrdoñezNational Development Company, et al. vs. Philippine Veterans Bank, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Amando TasarraPeople of the Philippines vs. Lydia RamaJose A. Saddul, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsAlfredo Llanes vs. Gaudioso BorjaPeople of the Philippines vs. Melvin S. GironRuben Delfin, et al. vs. Amado G. InciongTeofilo Ercillo vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Ernesto Dichoso vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Filipinas Mills, Inc. vs. Abelardo M. DayritLino Brocka vs. Juan Ponce EnrileCommercial Motors Corporation vs. Commissioners, NLRC, Second DivisionAngelina P. Santiago vs. Deputy Executive SecretaryLucio R. Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, et al.S & A Gaisano Inc., vs. Vicente A. HidalgoAntipaz P. Presco vs. Court of AppealsEufracio D. Rojas vs. Constancio B. MaglanaDirector of Forest Administration vs. Ramon C. FernandezSantiago Escarte, Jr. vs. Office of the President of the Phil.Alitalia vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Consolacion Villanueva vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Mario L. TandoyPeople’s Financing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.National Irrigation Administration vs. Teodoro P. ReginoLuz Farms vs. Sec. of the Dept. of Agrarian ReformDolores A. Paredes vs. Civil Service CommissionAlexander P. Ordillo, et al. vs. Commission on ElectionsMariano T. Nasser vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Francisco Manlapaz vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Leonida Coronado vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Andres E. Ditan vs. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration AdministratorBaltazar Pantig vs. Venancio BaltazarPeople of the Philippines vs. Romeo B. OrtizEulalio M. Ruiz vs. Doroteo N. CanebaMariano Dinglasan vs. Maria Alicia M. AustriaRolando Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Rufina Vda. De Tangub vs. Court of Appeals, et al.The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 43491, December 26, 1990
ATTY. TEODORO V. CABILAN & ALEJANDRO A. PARALISAN,Petitioners,
vs.
HON. JUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE & PROVINCIAL/CITY JAIL WARDEN of Cebu City,Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS,J.:
This is a petition forCertiorariand prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking the annulment of the April 2, 1976 Judgment of Hon. Jose R. Ramolete in Criminal Case No. CU-1388 declaring herein petitioners guilty of direct contempt of court sentencing them to suffer the penalty of ten (10) days imprisonment.
Herein respondent judge is the presiding judge in Criminal Case No. CU-1388, and herein petitioner Atty. Teodoro V. Cabilan is the private prosecutor. Petitioner Alejandro A. Paralisan is the husband of Norma Yap Paralisan, one of the prosecution witnesses who was ordered arrested by respondent judge for failure to attend the scheduled hearing of the said case, Mrs. Paralisan wrote a letter to respondent judge, explaining her failure and attached an unverified medical certificate.
At the hearing of March 29, 1976, the prosecution presented an illegible xerox copy of a supposed Deed of Sale of a truck executed by the complainant in favor of the accused. Consequently, petitioner Cabilan, as private prosecutor, moved for the production of the original which is being kept in the same building. Respondent judge granted the motion and ordered a ten minute recess. The prosecuting fiscal, petitioners and Mrs. Paralisan went to the Notarial Division to search for the original of the document. Thereafter, upon instruction of the fiscal, petitioner Paralisan returned to the courtroom to watch their exhibits. Shortly thereafter, respondent judge allegedly approached him and a heated exchange of words transpired between them, the details of which are contained in an affidavit Annex "A" filed later on March 30, by petitioner Cabilan attached to a motion to disqualify respondent judge from further hearing the case. The pertinent portions of the said affidavit, read:
"4. The Honorable Presiding Judge, upon seeing the affiant sitting on the bench walked back and forth towards said affiant and then, with a pointed finger directed to affiant said, 'you, you where is your wife? I will have her arrested. I do not accept that kind of medical certificate she submitted. I will order the Sheriff right now to detain your wife,' in a voice so loud as if affiant were his notorious enemy. Drowned by extreme humiliation, shame and amazed by the violent attitude of said judge, the affiant rushed up to the Judge and in a loud voice also asked, 'Judge do you have personal grudge against my wife and my family and why? Why do you shout at me? I am not a party to the case. Your show of partiality is conduct unbecoming of a Judge. Are you interested personally in this case? I have not seen a Judge acting like this.' I further told him that his partiality is very apparent. 'Since the start of the trial in this case, you have been threatening witnesses for the prosecution.' After uttering those words, I left out of the court room and the Honorable Presiding Judge followed me and threatened me with arrest and called the Sheriffs available in the vicinity.
"5. Since the start of the trial of this case almost a year ago, I noticed suspicious behavior of the Honorable Presiding Judge like allowing counsel for the accused and even the accused himself to enter his chambers without the presence of the Fiscal and/or private prosecutor.
"6. Personally, I have no intention of intervening or appearing as witness in this case although I know the facts hereof I also know the questionable acts of accused especially Romeo Ceniza.ℒαwρhi৷But after reading in the papers that the Honorable Presiding Judge is fond of issuing illegal orders like that Tanhu Case as enunciated by our Supreme Court, I got interested in said Judge because my wife was also ordered arrested by her failure to attend the hearing of this case as a mere witness. I believed that the order of arrest is another illegal order because I believe that my wife's failure to attend a trial as a witness is NOT direct contempt but an indirect one instead of arrest, she should merely be cited for contempt.
"7. In my observation, by the conduct of the Honorable Presiding Judge which he demonstrated to me as above-stated, he is not only fond of issuing illegal order but is tyrannical, oppressive, whimsical and capricious when he feels like tilting the scales of justice in favor of a party in the case adverted to under trial.
"8. I feel that taxpayers of this province wherein the Honorable Presiding Judge is sitting should at least be respected in their rights. We tax payers expect fairness in the dispensation of justice. (Rollo,p. 13)
Respondent judge, finding the allegations in the said affidavit contemptuous, prepared the herein questioned judgment, but on April 2, 1976, the same was promulgated only to petitioner Paralisan because petitioner Cabilan was then in Ozamis City. Petitioner Paralisan was escorted to the City Jail and had already served the sentence.
On April 7, 1976, petitioners filed the instant petition in this Court, and on the same date, the Second Division of this Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order, and to order the immediate release of the petitioners (Ibid., p. 36-A).
The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent judge erred in declaring herein petitioners guilty of direct contempt of court and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of ten (10) days imprisonment.
The answer is in the negative.
It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering the incarceration of the petitioners without preferred charges, considering that respondent judge implied in his order that the charges of the petitioners were unsubstantiated (Par. 2, Judgment, Annex "E"); that it may be that the contempt contemplated by respondent judge was an indirect contempt; that it was next to impossible to substantiate the charges in the motion for disqualification because petitioner Paralisan was immediately placed under arrest and sentenced to jail without charges; and that the acts of respondent judge were highly arbitrary and derogatory to his oath to hear before he condemns and to render justice to anyone regardless of his station in life.
Petitioners' contention is untenable.
At the outset, it should be stated that this Court has repeatedly declared that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice (Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 112, 135 [1985]), citing the cases of Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; and Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1). Under the Rules of Court, contempt is classified into direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge and can be punished summarily without hearing. Indirect contempt is not committed in the presence of the court and can be punished only after hearing (People v. Navarro, 121 SCRA 707, 710 [1983]). In the case of Ang vs. Castro (136 SCRA 453, 458 [1985]), this Court ruled that if the pleading containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it is equivalent to a misbehaviour committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. This ruling was reiterated in the case of Ante vs. Pascua (162 SCRA 780 [1988]), where it was held that contemptuous statements made in the pleadings filed with the court constitute direct contempt.
In the instant case, the basis of the judgment for contempt of court is petitioner Paralisan's affidavit which was attached and made as an integral part of the motion for disqualification filed by petitioner Cabilan which therefore falls squarely under the above ruling.
As to the claim of petitioner Cabilan that the affidavit was modified by petitioner Paralisan and that he discovered the insertion of the derogatory remarks only upon his return to Cebu City from Ozamis City, suffice it to say that aside from the arguments presented by respondent judge to the contrary, petitioner Cabilan, as counsel of record, has control of the proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes should be within his knowledge and responsibility (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1, 23 [1970]).
Nevertheless, considering that petitioner Cabilan has been practicing for nineteen (19) years and this is the first time that he is charged with contempt of court, and considering that the power to punish contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle with the corrective rather than the retaliatory idea of punishment (Baja vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391 [1988]), imposition of a fine of P500.00 without imprisonment would be enough (Caniza vs. Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295 [1984]).
On the other hand, petitioner Paralisan having already served his sentence, this case is moot and academic insofar as he is concerned.
PREMISES CONSIDERED,the instant petition is herebyDISMISSED,but the questioned judgment of April 2, 1976 isMODIFIEDby changing the sentence often (10) days imprisonment to a fine of P200.00 without imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.