ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382   July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382. July 17, 1997.]

    (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 95-22-RTJ)

    ATTY. REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Complainant, v. JUDGE RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; POWER OF COURTS TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. — The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of justice. Judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation, not for retaliation or vindication.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

    2. ID.; ID.; INDIRECT CONTEMPT; FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHEDULED HEARING WITHOUT CAUSE; REQUISITES; OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSON CHARGED TO APPEAR AND EXPLAIN HIS CONDUCT, WANTING. — Failure to attend a scheduled hearing without a valid cause can be a ground for indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. However, the following requisites must be present: 1) complaint in writing which may either be a motion for contempt filed by a party or an order issued by the court requiring a person to appear and explain in his conduct, and 2) an opportunity for the person charged to appear and explain his conduct. In the instant suit, the assailed order of respondent judge dated November 23, 1994 citing complainant in contempt of court was issued outright without affording the complainant any opportunity to appear and explain his conduct. This was clearly an error on respondent’s part.

    3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; OFFICERS OF THE COURT; NEGLIGENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent’s claim that the court, motu propio, desisted from enforcing the sanctions contained in the order dated November 23, 1994 despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration is unavailing considering that another order was in fact immediately issued by the respondent judge on December 1, 1994, reiterating compliance with the previous order within one day from receipt or face stiffer sanctions. Nonetheless, the Court agrees with respondent that complainant is not entirely blameless because he misled respondent judge into believing that he was the counsel de oficio for the accused in Criminal Case No. 94-822. Complainant’s denial of being privy to the case is belied by the return of the notice of hearing which contained his signature and written notations requesting that the case be called at 10:00 a.m., because he had other cases already scheduled for that day. Complainant failed to deny or refute this in his Reply to respondent’s Comment, perforce, he must be bound by the same. From the foregoing, it is evident that both the complainant and respondent were guilty of negligence in the performance of their duties as officers of the court and their actuations must therefore be censured.chanrobles.com : virtual law library


    R E S O L U T I O N


    FRANCISCO, J.:


    This is an administrative complaint against Judge Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, for gross ignorance of the law, misconduct and oppression filed by Atty. Rexel M. Pacuribot, counsel for the District Office of the Public Attorney’s Office in Cagayan de Oro City and officially assigned to Branches 17 and 21 of the RTC of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City.

    The complaint stemmed from the Orders issued by respondent judge, dated November 23, 1994, citing complainant in contempt of court and ordering him to pay a fine of P200.00 for failure to appear as counsel de oficio for the accused in Criminal Case No. 94-822 at the scheduled arraignment on said date, and subsequently on December 1, 1994, reiterating that complainant pay the fine imposed on him in the previous order within one day from receipt thereof or face graver sanctions. Complainant refused to comply with the aforesaid orders and instead filed a Manifestation alleging that he is not privy to the aforesaid criminal case as he is not the counsel of any of the accused and assailed the order for being illegal, arbitrary, despotic and not in accordance with Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Thereafter, complainant proceeded to file the instant administrative complaint arguing that respondent judge acted arbitrarily in citing him for contempt for the following reasons: 1) the order was issued without affording him due process because he was not given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt; 2) he was not privy to the case as he was not the counsel of any of the accused, and 3) none of the grounds provided in Rule 71 for direct and indirect contempt are present.

    In answer to the complaint, respondent judge filed his Comment and countered that complainant misled the trial court into believing that he was the counsel for the accused. According to respondent, complainant himself admitted that he is officially assigned to Branch 21 of the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City, respondent judge’s sala. The accused in Criminal Case No. 94-822 being detention prisoners, the Notice of Hearing was, as a matter of procedure, sent to the public prosecutor assigned to Branch 21, one of them being herein complainant. Upon receipt of the Notice of Hearing on November 10, 1994, complainant even wrote a request on the return of the notice that the case be called at 10 A.M. because he has other cases already scheduled. 1 At the scheduled hearing however, complainant failed to appear at all despite accommodating his request. Respondent judge therefore considered this as an affront to the court’s dignity as it made a mockery of the proceedings and thus led him to issue the order of November 23, 1994, citing complainant in contempt of court outright and ordering him to pay a fine of P200.00 for failing to appear at the scheduled hearing. Nevertheless, respondent judge contends that even assuming that he committed an error in issuing the aforesaid order, the same was not enforced despite the absence of any motion for reconsideration on complainant’s part because the court, motu proprio, desisted from imposing the sanctions contained therein. Moreover, respondent judge maintains that he could not be entirely faulted for issuing the assailed order of November 23, 1994 because he was misled into believing that complainant was indeed the counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. 94-822 as borne by the notations of complainant on the return of the notice of hearing, coupled with the latter’s failure to inform the court that he is not privy to the case despite receiving the notice of hearing as early as November 10, 1994. Thus, according to respondent judge, this suit may actually be categorized as "damnum absque injuria." Finally, respondent judge alleged that the filing of this complaint was intended purely and plainly for purposes of harassment and resentment on the part of complainant owing to the fact that on previous occasions the latter has been rebuffed by the court in several cases pending before it where he appeared as counsel. Hence, respondent judge prays for the dismissal of this complaint.

    It is well-settled that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of justice. 2 Judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation, not for retaliation or vindication. 3

    Failure to attend a scheduled hearing without a valid cause can be a ground for indirect contempt under Section 3 of Rule 71. However, the following requisites must be present: 1) a complaint in writing which may either be a motion for contempt filed by a party or an order issued by the court requiring a person to appear and explain his conduct, and 2) an opportunity for the person charged to appear and explain his conduct. 4

    In the instant suit, the assailed order of respondent judge dated November 23, 1994 citing complainant in contempt of court was issued outright without affording the complainant any opportunity to appear and explain his conduct. This was clearly an error on respondent’s part. Respondent’s claim that the court, motu propio, desisted from enforcing the sanctions contained in the order dated November 23, 1994 despite the absence of a motion for reconsideration is unavailing considering that another order was in fact immediately issued by the respondent judge on December 1, 1994, reiterating compliance with the previous order within one day from receipt or face stiffer sanctions. 5

    Nonetheless, the Court agrees with respondent that complainant is not entirely blameless because he misled respondent judge into believing that he was the counsel de oficio for the accused in Criminal Case No. 94-822. Complainant’s denial of being privy to the case is belied by the return of the notice of hearing which contained his signature and written notations requesting that the case be called at 10 A.M. because he had other cases already scheduled for that day. Complainant failed to deny or refute this in his Reply to respondent’s Comment, perforce, he must be bound by the same.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    From the foregoing, it is evident that both the complainant and respondent were guilty of negligence in the performance of their duties as officers of the court and their actuations must therefore be censured.

    ACCORDINGLY, both parties are hereby REPRIMANDED and ordered to pay a fine of One thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) each, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same acts will be severely dealt with in the future.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Annex I, Comment.

    2. Castaños v. Escaño, Jr., 251 SCRA 174, 197 (1995) citing Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 112, 135 (1985); Slade Perkins v. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration v. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; Montalban v. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1.

    3. Ibid., citing De Guia v. Guerrero, Jr., 234 SCRA 625, 630 (1994); Baja v. Macandong, 153 SCRA 391, 398 (1988).

    4. Kalilid Wood Industries Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 735, 745 (1991) citing Geronimo v. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435, 443 (1985).

    5. Annex E, Complaint.

    Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382   July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED