Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > June 1980 Decisions > A.M. No. 1149-MJ June 30, 1980 - ZENECIO BARRIOS v. LEONIDES J. LLAMAS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 1149-MJ. June 30, 1980.]

ZENECIO BARRIOS, Complainant, v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE LEONIDES J. LLAMAS of Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


Zenecio Barrios in his verified complaint dated November 2, 1975 charged respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and notoriously disgraceful and immoral conduct.

1. Ignorance of the law. — According to respondent judge’s version, his wife, who was employed in Iloilo City, visited him in February, 1973 in Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro where he was stationed as a municipal judge (he is now circuit municipal judge of Abra de Ilog-Paluan of the same province).

While in the public market, respondent’s wife was informed by Engracia Olivares and Erlinda Tan that the judge was having amorous relations with Evelyn Pilar, a casual employee in the office of the election registrar.

That information infuriated Mrs. Llamas. She rushed to the office of Evelyn Pilar in the municipal building and had an altercation with her in the presence of many persons.

For several days, Mrs. Llamas did not speak to the respondent and, as he confessed, he could not concentrate on the task of writing the decision in Civil Case No. 6, Felipe de los Reyes versus Estanislao Reyes, Sr., an ejectment case. He decided the case on February 14, 1973.

That circumstance gave the respondent the idea that he should treat the misconduct of Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan as a contempt incident in the ejectment case although the two were not parties in that case. The respondent theorized that the rumor mongering tended to obstruct and degrade the administration of justice in the ejectment case.

So, he issued an order dated February 13, 1973 in the ejectment case requiring the talebearers, Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan, to explain within seventy-two hours from notice why they should not be held in contempt of court "for spreading wild and ugly rumors touching on the official and personal integrity" of the court.

As respondent explained, the order was designed to enable him to have a confrontation with the gossipers. The two appeared in court, answered the charge and promised not to smear the judge’s good name.

However, when they persisted in spreading the same calumny, the judge issued on March 13, 1973 another order not in the ejectment case but from the "Office of the Municipal Judge."

In that order, he "cited for contempt" the two gossipers, meaning he found them guilty of contempt of court and directed Mrs. Olivares to pay a fine of ten pesos and Mrs. Tan to pay a fine of twenty pesos within twelve hours from notice and, if they failed to do so, they would "be put behind bars for twenty-four hours."

Afraid of being incarcerated in the calaboose, the two rumor-mongers paid the fines immediately. Mrs. Olivares, who is a comadre of the respondent, executed in connection with this administrative case an affidavit wherein she stated that she had nothing to do with the filing thereof.

We hold that the respondent erred in holding Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan in contempt of court. They were defamers, not contemnors. The fact that they slandered the judge did not mean that they committed contempt of court. A criminal action for defamation could have been brought against them but not a contempt proceeding. Much less could they have been held in contempt of court in the ejectment case to which they were strangers.

Contempt, which used to be a provisional remedy (Rule 64 of the 1940 Rules of Court), is a special civil action in the present Rules of Court.

Of course, a court has the inherent power to punish contempt but the fact that a judge, as distinguished from the court to which he is assigned, is exposed to public ridicule, discredit or dishonor by reason of his private conduct does not mean that the libeler has committed contempt of court.

In its broad sense, contempt constitutes "a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity." "In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court." (17 C.J.S. 5.)

For having mistakenly used his office in an oppressive and vindicative manner against the two rumormongers, a fine equivalent to his salary for one month is imposed on the respondent and, furthermore, he deserves a severe censure.

2. Immoral conduct. — Complainant Barrios who, according to the respondent, was a disgruntled litigant in his court, also charged the judge with having maintained amorous relations with his clerk-stenographer, Evelyn Magallanes (Not to be confounded with Evelyn Pilar), even using the courtroom as a motel.

The respondent denied the charge. He explained that Miss Magallanes is the younger sister of his friend, Edgardo Magallanes, and that he could not possibly have used his sala, a very public place, as the venue for having an illicit relationship with her.

The respondent further explained that it was not probable that he would commit immorality because he is an ex-seminarian, a devout Catholic and a member of the cursillo movement and the Knights of Columbus.

We find respondent’s detailed answer to the immorality charge to be satisfactory and adequate for his exoneration.

WHEREFORE, in connection with the first charge, the fine already mentioned is imposed on the respondent and, in addition, he is severely reprimanded. He is warned that a more drastic penalty will be imposed on him if he commits another irregularity. A copy of this decision should be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Justice De Castro was designated to sit in the Second Division.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-1980 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-38179 June 16, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRIANO ARCIAGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50392 & L-50727 June 16, 1980 - SALVADOR T. TIANGCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL (QUEZON CITY) BRANCH IX, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1484 June 19, 1980 - ARSENIO V. MENDOZA v. ARSENIO MERCADO

  • A.C. No. 1527 June 19, 1980 - SISENANDO A. SANTOS v. GIL P. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-46297 June 19, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIO S. LAGUISMA

  • A.M. No. P-2383 June 25, 1980 - IN RE: REMEDIOS D. LAUS

  • G.R. No. L-23516 June 25, 1980 - CANDIDO SAN LUIS, ET AL. v. TOMASA SAN LUIS NEGRETE

  • G.R. No. L-28801 June 25, 1980 - JOSE V. RICAMARA v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-30187 June 25, 1980 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES

  • G.R. No. L-31927 June 25, 1980 - BROOKE D. CADWALLADER, ET AL. v. JESUS V. ABELEDA

  • G.R. No. L-31985 June 25, 1980 - IRENE VDA. DE CATCHUELA v. ADALIA FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32815 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. L-34112 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34404 June 25, 1980 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35416 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERHELITO DAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-35914 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO ALINDOG

  • G.R. Nos. L-36294 & L-36327 June 25, 1980 - PEDRO GALI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36897 June 25, 1980 - FLORENTINO S. TOMAS v. EUSEBIA TOMAS

  • G.R. No. L-37271 June 25, 1930

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

  • G.R. No. L-39686 June 25, 1980 - VOLKSCHEL LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40233 June 25, 1980 - ROMULO S. NATIVIDAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40995 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULALIO BOHOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41344 June 25, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONIDES PAREDES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45017 June 25, 1980 - ELINO A. VILLAFLOR v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 51484 June 25, 1980 - AVELINO BACHILLER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 196 June 30, 1980 - VIRGINIA SOTTO v. ORTAÑES DE GUIA

  • A.M. No. 1149-MJ June 30, 1980 - ZENECIO BARRIOS v. LEONIDES J. LLAMAS

  • G.R. No. L-31839 June 30, 1980 - EDMUNDO S. ALBERTO v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34574-79 June 30, 1980 - EMILIANO O. OZAETA, ET AL. v. OIL INDUSTRY COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40424 June 30, 1980 - R. MARINO CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46933 June 30, 1980 - CONFEDERATION OF CITIZENS LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48413 June 30, 1980 - MERRIAM SCHOOL AND OFFICE SUPPLIES CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48602 June 30, 1980 - FE N. SULIT v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49809 June 30, 1980 - WILLIAM C. PFLEIDER, ET AL. v. OSCAR R. VICTORIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50087 June 30, 1980 - MANUEL S. LAUREL, ET AL. v. EMETERIO CUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52169 June 30, 1980 - SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG VIA MARE v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.