FIRST
DIVISION
EMILIANO
VELUZ,
Complainant,
A. M. No. MTJ-93-759
September 5, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
RAUL V. BABARAN,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U T I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
This is an
administrative complaint, filed by
Emiliano Veluz against Judge Raul V. Babaran, former Presiding Judge of
the Municipal Trial Court of Diffun, Quirino, which seeks the judge's
dismissal
from the service and his disbarment, upon the allegation that
respondent
judge acted with grave abuse of authority and/or ignorance of the law
when
he cited complainant for direct contempt of court through an order,
dated
November 21, 1992,[1]
resulting in complainant's arrest and incarceration.
Complainant
Emiliano Veluz claimed ownership of
an agricultural land, situated at La Paz, Saguday, Quirino, on the
strength
of TCT No. 6101 in his name. In August, 1992, he had the property
fenced
allegedly to keep it from trespassers. As a consequence of the fencing,
one Cristeta Pastor and others instituted on September 12, 1992 an
action
for forcible entry and detainer against Veluz, docketed as Civil Case
No.
307, before the Municipal Trial Court of Diffun, Quirino, then presided
over by respondent, claiming ownership of the land in question, per TCT
No. T-3920, which indicates that the land is situated in Luttuad,
Quirino.
At the hearing held on November 17, 1992, complainant challenged the
jurisdiction
of the court contending that the said land is within the territorial
limits
of Saguday, Quirino, an adjacent town. To resolve the issue of
territorial
jurisdiction, respondent ordered the relocation and ocular inspection
of
the land with the technical assistance of the Provincial Environment
and
Natural Resources Office [PENRO], Bureau of Lands and the Register of
Deeds.
Ocular inspection was set on November 21, 1992, Complainant's counsel,
Atty. Quirico Pilotin, when signifying that he could not attend, was
directed
to send a representative.cralaw:red
At about 10:00
o'clock A.M. of November 21, 1992,
respondent judge and Atty. Ernesto Salun-at, counsel for Cristeta
Pastor,
arrived in the land and, soon after, met Emiliano Veluz. Respondent
asked
complainant whether his lawyer sent a representative. The latter, not
caring
to answer, turned around instead, took along bolo, and rushed towards
respondent
and Atty. Salun-at. Respondent and Atty. Salun-at both cautioned
complainant
to stop approaching them and to drop his weapon. Complainant, however,
went on, retorting that he was not afraid of them. Realizing at this
point
the firm resolve of the complainant to fight it out, respondent judge
ran
away for safety. Atty. Salun-at and his driver followed suit. And while
the three [3] of them were fleeing, complainant continued to hurl
threatening
remarks at them. When they were finally out of the property in
question,
SPO3 Jovino Navalta and some court employees arrived. SPO3 Navalta
wanted
to arrest complainant but respondent dissuaded him from so doing
because
complainant was armed and he had companions who could harm him. They
all
turned back and left without any relocation and ocular inspection being
effected. On the same day, respondent issued an order citing
complainant
for contempt for acts disrespectful towards the court and for
disrupting
its proceedings. On November 23, 1992, seven [7] policemen went inside
the disputed land and arrested complainant by authority of a warrant
for
his arrest issued by respondent. Complainant was put in jail and
remained
thereat until December 3, 1992.cralaw:red
Complainant
charged that respondent committed
grave abuse of authority, prompted by vengeance if not gross ignorance
of the law, when he issued his November 21, 1992 order, holding him
liable
for contempt of court and directing his incarceration until further
orders
from the court. Complainant argued that even assuming that he committed
disrespectful conduct that would merit his conviction for direct
contempt,
respondent judge has no power to order his indefinite incarceration
because
he could only fine complainant with ten [10] pesos or order him
imprisoned
for one [1] day or both in his sound discretion.cralaw:red
Complainant also
charged respondent judge with
partiality in not similarly citing Atty. Salun-at for contempt
notwithstanding
the fact that the latter had a handgun tucked al his waist displaying
it
in full view or the judge end that Atty. Salun-at shouted threatening
words
at complainant in the respondent judge's presence. In his Comment,[2]
respondent justified his disputed order, stressing that "the acts and
behavior
displayed by herein complainant during the aborted ocular
inspection/survey
and the spectacle of a judge fleeing like a scared cat from the
bolo-wielding
complainant, in the presence of others, so violated the authority of
the
court, rendering it so helpless, utterly embarrassed and degraded."[3]
Respondent claimed that said acts and behavior, contemptible as they
are,
deserve to be summarily punished by the court if only to uphold the
court's
authority and majesty. Respondent did not order complainant's immediate
release for fear that complainant might continue to obstruct court
proceedings.cralaw:red
Respondent
describes as a figment of complainant's
imagination the allegation that Atty. Ernesto Salon-at had a gun tucked
in his waist, the fact being that Atty. Salun-at did not have a gun. By
its resolution, dated July 12, 1993,[4]
this court referred this case to Executive Judge Gregorio A. Buenavista
of the Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino for investigation,
report and recommendation. This case was eventually assigned to Judge
Wilfredo
P. Ambrosio of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Cabarroguis,
Quirino,
who took over the case from Judge Carlos T. Aggabao, the latter having
retired on March 31, 1995.cralaw:red
The investigating
judge made the following conclusions
and recommendations:
After examining and evaluating the
evidence
presented
before us, we honestly believe that the complaint should be dismissed
for
want of basis and merit. The claim of complainant that respondent was
not
a fair judge because he did not cite Atty. Salun-at for contempt is
utterly
absurd. The act of Atty. Salun-at in having a handgun tucked on his
waist
and shouting [at him Veluz] had nothing to do with the aborted
relocation
and ocular inspection of the land subject of the forcible entry case in
respondent's court. But had complainant only heeded Atty. Salun-at's
plea
for him to stop approaching with a long bolo and calmed (sic) down,
the probability was that the relocation or even only the ocular
inspection
could have continued. It is to be emphasized that ocular inspection,
when
so ordered, is a part of court proceedings in a given instance. To the
mind of respondent the disruption was attributable to complainant Veluz
and so he charged him for direct contempt.
In citing him for direct contempt of
court,
complainant
claims that respondent acted with grave abuse of authority if not gross
ignorance of the law. This we find to be untenable. We believe
respondent
acted in good faith and with the dictate of his conscience in stating
that
what he did is well within the ambit and spirit of the law which is
Sec.
1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. Thus respondent averred "that
the acts of complainant in that aborted ocular inspection and
relocation
survey are contemptible deserving to be summarily punished by the
courts
if only to uphold their authority and majesty."
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing,
we
found no valid ground for disbarment of respondent and hereby
respectfully
recommend that the case be dismissed.[5]
On January 27,
1997, the court referred this case
to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. Acting through
Senior
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, the Office of the Court
Administrator found no compelling reason to disturb the findings and
recommendations
of Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio, and accordingly, concurred with Judge
Ambrosio's
recommendation that instant administrative complaint be dismissed for
lack
of merit.
The present
charges against respondent stemmed
from his order of November 21, 1992 which reads:
O R D E R
For displaying contemptuous and
disrespectful
behavior during the scheduled relocation survey, defendant Emiliano
Veluz
is hereby cited for direct contempt of court. The Chief of Police of
the
Philippine National Police of Diffun, Quirino is hereby directed to
cause
the arrest and detention of defendant Emiliano Veluz and to keep him
behind
bars until further orders from the court.[6]
Complainant's
act of rushing towards respondent and
Atty. Salun-at with a long bolo evidently aimed at preventing the
latter's
entry to the disputed land for the scheduled ocular
inspection/relocation
survey coupled with complainant's threatening remarks hurled at them as
they were fleeing, undoubtedly constitute direct contempt of court
deserving
to be summarily punished. Respondent was, therefore, justified in
holding
complainant liable for direct contempt of court pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. However, when respondent ordered
complainant's indefinite incarceration, he cannot be said to have acted
in accordance with law. Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of
Court
clearly provides that conviction for direct contempt in an inferior
court
carries with it the punishment of imprisonment not exceeding one [1]
day
or a fine not exceeding Ten [10] Pesos,[7]
or both. Hence, the complaint herein is not exactly without basis. But,
as found by the investigating judge, concurred in by the Office of the
Court Administrator, respondent had acted in good faith, honestly
believing
that what he did was well within the ambit and spirit of the applicable
law. Worth noting is respondent's explanation that the overriding
consideration
in the stay of complainant's release from prison was to prevent him
from
further obstructing the court's proceedings as well as from risking the
life and limb of respondent himself and those of his court staff while
in the process of conducting the ocular inspection/relocation survey.
Respondent's good
faith, notwithstanding, We cannot
close our eyes to the fact that respondent committed a blunder for
which
he should at least be admonished for having failed to exercise that
degree
of care required of any judge in the correct and prompt administration
of justice.[8]
He ought to be reminded that it is highly imperative that a judge
should
be conversant with basic legal principles.[9]
However, as disclosed by the record, respondent had already resigned
from
the bench, his resignation having been accepted by the President on
December
7, 1993. Hence, the instant complaint for disciplinary action has
already
become moot and academic.cralaw:red
As regards the
complaint for disbarment, We hold
that the acts complained of do not constitute a valid ground therefor.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
instant administrative complaint
for disbarment is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The administrative
complaint
for gross ignorance of the law is likewise DISMISSED for having been
rendered
moot and academic.cralaw:red
Let a copy of
this resolution be attached to the
respondent's record on file.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, Vitug
and Kapunan, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Annex "D"; Rollo, p. 80.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 46-66.
[3]
Id., p. 58.
[4]
Rollo, p. 43.
[5]
Recommendation of the Investigating Judge, pp. 6-7.
[6]
See Note 1
[7]
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the amount of fine that may be
imposed as punishment for direct contempt in a lower court is not to
exceed
Two Hundred Pesos.
[8]
Rolloque vs. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 534 [1954].
[9]
Muñoz vs. Ariño, 241 SCRA 478 [1995]. |