ManilaEN
BANC
ATTY.
DAMASO S.
FLORES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
SC-96-1
July
10,
1997
-versus-
HON.
BERNARDO P.
ABESAMIS,
Regional Trial
Court,
Branch 85, Quezon City
[now Deputy Court
Administrator],
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
NARVASA,
C.J.:
This resolution treats
of the liability of Atty. Damaso S. Flores for contempt of court in
relation
to several actions and proceedings in which he was a party.
Flores was the defendant
in Civil Case No. Q-45825 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
(Branch
85). The case involved an admitted indebtedness of Flores to the
plaintiff,
Rolando Ligon, of about 1.8 million pesos. A judgment based on
compromise
was rendered on September 26, 1985 by the late Judge Jose Castro,
providing
for payment of the debt in stated installments and, in the event of
default,
acceleration of the obligation and the surrender of the
"Parañaque
Cockpit Stadium" (held by Flores under lease) to Ligon for the latter
to
manage and operate.cralaw:red
On April 10, 1986, the
Trial Court promulgated an order declaring Flores to have breached the
compromise judgment and directing execution thereof; and on May 22,
1986,
a writ of execution issued. Flores appealed the Order of April 10, 1986
to the Court of Appeals, his appeal being docketed as CA-G. R. CV No.
10259;
and to nullify the writ of execution, he filed a certiorari action in
the
same Court, docketed as CA-G. R. SP No. 09061.cralaw:red
CA-G. R. Sp No. 09061
was decided on September 19, 1986 in Flores' favor vindicating
his
right to possess the cockpit on a finding that he had not infringed the
compromise judgment. Ligon's petition for review in the Supreme Court,
G.R. No. 76039, was dismissed on February 23, 1987, and his motion for
reconsideration denied on March 10, 1988.cralaw:red
Flores then asked the
Trial Court to restore possession of the cockpit to him in light of
these
dispositions of the Court of Appeals and this Court. His motion to this
effect, dated April 5, 1988, was granted by Judge Abesamis, but only on
April 20, 1988, because the latter [a] had to wait for the mittimus,
which
was not received until April 13, 1988, and [b] had to study the
pleadings
filed by Ligon and Flores on the issue, dated April 14 and 15, 1988,
respectively.cralaw:red
Despite Judge Abesamis'
Order of April 20, 1988 and two other orders of substantially the
same tenor dated May 2, 1988 and August 31, 1988 in response to Flores'
motions dated June 9, 1988 and August 15, 1988 Flores was still
unable
to regain possession of the cockpit. This was due to Ligon's actions in
the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
In that Court, Ligon
challenged the order of execution of April 20, 1988 by a special civil
action of certiorari, CA-G. R. SP No. 14588, and obtained a temporary
restraining
order. CA-G. R. SP No. 14588 was consolidated with CA-G. R. CV No.
10259.
The cases were jointly decided on August 9, 1988 in Flores' favor; and
Ligon's motion for reconsideration, denied on November 23, 1988.
Ligon's
appeal to this Court, G. R. No. 84644 again resulted in failure. His
petition
for review was denied on August 29, 1989, and reconsideration denied on
October 23, 1989.cralaw:red
It is noteworthy that
in G. R. No. 84644, in an attempt to obtain a favorable verdict, Ligon
drew attention to the fact that some years back he had purchased the
Parañaque
Cockpit Stadium from its owner (Flores' lessor) and argued that this
gave
him a right of possession superior to that of Flores. The Court however
declined to take cognizance of the matter and observed in its
Resolution
of October 23, 1989 denying Ligon's motion for reconsideration with
finality
that "any supervening event should properly be addressed to the Trial
Court,
not to this Court."
Judge Abesamis received
notice of the judgment of August 9, 1988 in the consolidated cases of
CA-G.
R. SP No. 14588 and CA-G. R. CV No. 10259 on August 16, 1988; and after
considering the pleadings presented by the parties, the last being a
rejoinder
dated August 26, 1988, ordered issuance of an alias writ of execution
on
August 31, 1988, to revert possession of the cockpit to Flores.
But enforcement of
the alias writ of execution was again effectively delayed by still
other
circumstances, to wit: (1) another temporary restraining order
issued
by the Court of Appeals on October 27, 1988 in CA-G. R. SP No. 14588
above
mentioned which was not lifted until November 23, 1988; (2) a
temporary
restraining order issued on December 5, 1988 by the Second Division of
the Supreme Court in G. R. No. 84644, not lifted until October, 1989;
and
(3) the pendency in Civil Case No. Q-45825 itself of the matter of the
appointment of a special sheriff sought by Flores precisely to carry
out
the writ.cralaw:red
Surprisingly although
aware of these circumstances precluding enforcement of Judge Abesamis'
order for reversion of the cockpit to him Flores filed criminal
and
administrative cases against said Judge, accusing him of partiality,
evident
bad faith, and gross negligence, as well as of serious misconduct,
inefficiency
and ignorance of the law, in deliberately delaying action on his
motions
to obtain possession of the cockpit. These cases were:
(a) Criminal Case No.
OMB-0-89-01209 filed on May 22, 1989 in the Office of the Ombudsman;
(b) A. M. No.
90-11-332-SBA,
the "administrative aspect" of Case No. OMB-0-89-01209, supra,
of
which this Court took cognizance; and
(c) A. M. No.
RTJ-89-348,
filed with this Court on June 27, 1989.
OMB Case No. 0-89-01209
was short-lived. It was dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman on
September
13, 1989 "for lack of merit and insufficiency of evidence" upon a
finding
that Judge Abesamis had acted promptly and properly on Flores' motions.
Indeed, upon the facts just recited, it was legally impossible to
ascribe
inaction or intent to delay to His Honor as regards Flores' attempts to
regain possession of the cockpit.
Now, on November 20,
1989 after Ligon's motion for reconsideration of the judgment in
G. R. No. 84644 was denied with finality in the Resolution of October
23,
1989 Abesamis authorized the issuance of still another writ of
execution
in Flores' favor. But again Ligon challenged this writ in yet another
special
civil action in the Court of Appeals, CA-G. R. SP No. 19348. The case
was
decided adversely to him on January 22, 1990.cralaw:red
Once more, Flores asked
the Regional Trial Court to restore possession of the cockpit to him,
and
once more Ligon opposed him, this time asserting that such restoration
was no longer legally possible because barred by a "supervening
event"
which, according to this Court's Resolution of October 23, 1989 in G.
R.
No. 84644, "should properly be addressed to the Trial Court, not to
this
Court," supra. Ligon pointed out that since he had become the owner of
the cockpit, his right of possession must be deemed superior to that of
Flores, lessee of the former owner.cralaw:red
After hearing the parties,
Judge Abesamis sustained Ligon's contention, in an Order dated February
16, 1990. That Order was later upheld by Judge Teodoro Regino,
Abesamis'
"pair judge," who acted on a subsequent motion of Flores to get back
the
cockpit while Abesamis was on leave. In his Order of April 16, 1990,
Judge
Regino ruled that Ligon's lawful acquisition of title to the cockpit
and
Flores' continuing failure to pay his debt of about P1.8 million to the
former were supervening events warranting Ligon's retention of the
cockpit
and precluding its restoration to Flores. Flores' filed a motion for
reconsideration,
which was acted on by Judge Abesamis who had by then returned to duty.
The motion was denied by Order of June 6,1990.cralaw:red
Flores challenged these
three (3) orders of February 16, 1990 (of Abesamis), of April 16,
1990 (of Regino) and of June 6, 1990 (of Abesamis) in a
certiorari
suit filed with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G. R. SP No.
22201.
He also initiated on May 14, 1990, an administrative proceeding against
Judge Teodoro Regino, docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-90-505, in relation to
his
Order dated April 16, 1990, supra.cralaw:red
The Court of Appeals,
however, found no merit in Flores' certiorari action (CA-G. R. SP No.
22201),
and in a Decision promulgated on October 31, 1990 (shortly after the
action's
commencement), dismissed the same. It later denied reconsideration
thereof,
by Resolution dated February 26, 1991. Flores' appeal to this Court,
docketed
as G. R. No. 97556, also failed.cralaw:red
Also dismissed by this
Court for lack of merit, about two and a half years later, were the
administrative
case against Judge Regino (A. M. No. RTJ-90-505) as well as those
against
Judge Abesamis (A. M. No. 90-11-332-SBA) and (A. M. No. RTJ-89-348).
That
Resolution of dismissal, dated September 14, 1993, reads as follows:
"xxx Acting on the
separate complaints filed by Damaso Flores in (a) A. M. No. RTJ-89-348
charging respondent Judge Bernardo P. Abesamis with serious misconduct,
inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No.
Q-45825, entitled 'Rolando R. Ligon vs. Damaso S. Flores' as well as
the
respondent's comment thereon dated May 7, 1990 and the complainant's
reply
(there)to xxx; and (b) A. M. No. RTJ-90-505 charging respondent Judge
Teodoro
P. Regino (who took over as pairing judge when Judge Abesamis was on
sick
leave) with serious misconduct, inefficiency and gross ignorance of the
law for having issued in Civil Case No. Q-45825 his order of April 16,
1990 which, according to complainant, unlawfully interpreted the final
judgment he was supposed to enforce, and in doing so, he callously
arrogated
unto himself the power to reverse and set aside the said final
judgments
and rendered the same useless and nugatory as well as the respondent's
reply/memorandum dated November 14, 1990 filed in compliance with the
resolution
of July 16, 1990, the Court Resolved to DISMISS all the charges against
respondent Judge Bernardo P. Abesamis in A.M. No. RTJ-89-348 for lack
of
merit. Similarly, considering that the extensive discussion made by
respondent
Judge Teodoro P. Regino in A.M. No. RTJ-90-505 in his order of April
16,
1990 of the pertinent facts and law involved is utterly inconsistent
with
the truth of the charges levelled at him, all the charges against Judge
Teodoro P. Regino in A.M. No. RTJ-90-505 are hereby likewise DISMISSED.
"Further, the Court
Resolved to DISMISS, for lack of merit, the charges against Judge
Abesamis
in the administrative aspect of OMB Case No. 0-89-01209, entitled
'Damaso
S. Flores vs. Hon. Bernardo P. Abesamis' in A. M. No. 90-11-332-SB,
considering
that the charges therein are fundamentally similar and are based on the
same facts and incidents as in A. M. No. RTJ-89-348."
But two years after promulgation
of this Resolution of September 13, 1993, or more precisely on December
21, 1995, Damaso Flores once more filed in the Office of the Ombudsman
a complaint against Judge Abesamis, with respect to his Orders of
February
16, June 6, and December 10, 1990. Specifically, he accused Judge
Abesamis
of transgressing Section (e) of R. A. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act): "for alleged bias and prejudice in granting a party's
motion
which caused undue injury to complainant."
The case was docketed
as CPL No. 95-3618, and was referred by Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L.
Aportadera, Jr. on February 27, 1996 to the Office of the Court
Administrator,
where it was docketed as A. M. No. SC-96-1. The case was dismissed "for
utter lack of merit" in this Court's Decision of December 23, 1996. The
decision also ordered Flores:
"xxx to EXPLAIN
within
ten (10) days from notice hereof why he should not be disciplinarily
dealt
with for willful disregard of this Court's judgments and orders and
those
of the Court of Appeals; abuse of the processes of the courts; and
forum-shopping."
Flores submitted his explanation,
denominated "Compliance," under date of January 14, 1997. In it he
reviews
in some detail the relevant facts and "submits that in filing all the
cases,
whether civil or administrative, he did not willfully disregard the
judgments
and orders of this Court and those of the Court of Appeals, has not
abused
the courts' processes nor engaged in forum-shopping, (having filed said
cases in the firm belief) that they were meritorious and not intended
for
delay or to harass anyone or to abuse the courts' processes," and with
"a pure motive and that was to obtain justice to get what was due to
him
xxx."
It is in light of the
material facts narrated herein [and in the Decision of December 23,
1996],
in relation to Atty. Flores' aforesaid explanation [Compliance] of
January
14, 1997, that the Court now addresses the matter of Flores' liability
for disciplinary sanction.cralaw:red
1. His first complaints
against Judge Abesamis in the OMB and this court were clearly without
basis
whatever and not susceptible of exculpatory explanation.cralaw:red
The common theory under
which he sought to hold Judge Abesamis administratively and criminally
responsible in Case OMB 0-89-01209 [filed on May 22, 1989], A. M.
No. 90-11-332-SB [the "administrative aspect" of OMB 0-89-01209] and A.
M. No. RTJ-89-348 was that His Honor had unduly delayed action on
several motions filed by him to regain possession of the
Parañaque
Cockpit Stadium in accordance with the Decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G. R. No. 09061 dated September 19, 1986, affirmed by this
Court's
Resolution of February 23, 1987 in G. R. No. 76039, reconsideration
being
thereafter denied on March 10, 1988. The motions were allegedly those
dated
April 5, 1988, June 9, 1988, August 15, 1988, October 14, 1988, and
November
24, 1988.cralaw:red
But, as already stated,
since Judge Abesamis received the mittimus from the Court of
Appeals
only on April 13, 1988, he could not have acted earlier on Flores'
motion
of April 5. Moreover, he had to study the pleadings exchanged by Ligon
and Flores himself on the issue (dated April 14, and 15, 1988,
respectively).
Five days afterwards, or on April 20, 1988, he granted the latter's
motion
for execution. In other words, he acted on the incident within five (5)
days after it could be properly regarded as submitted for resolution.cralaw:red
The trouble is, as above
related, Flores' adversary, Ligon, lost no time in challenging Judge
Abesamis'
order of execution of April 20, 1988, and other orders for restoration
of possession of the cockpit to Flores, in a series of actions in the
Court
of Appeals and in this Court, in the course of which temporary
restraining
orders were issued against Abesamis. It was not until October 23, 1989,
when Ligon's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality in G.
R. No. 84644, that the judicial restraints on Judge Abesamis were
finally
removed. Under the facts, to repeat, it is not possible fairly to
ascribe
inaction or intent to delay to His Honor as regards Flores' motions for
execution.cralaw:red
It was precisely in
light of these circumstances, among others, that the Office of the
Ombudsman
quickly threw out Flores' complaint against Judge Abesamis. That Office
found that [contrary to Flores' claims] practically all of [his
motions]
before [Abesamis'] sala have been favorably acted upon by the latter
and
with dispatch excepting those cases only where a directive had been
received
from the Court of Appeals ordering [him] to desist from restoring
possession
of subject cockpit to herein complainant until further orders or in
cases
where Ligon filed his Opposition to [Flores' motions] and the latter
filed
his Answer/Comment thereto.cralaw:red
And it was for the same
reasons that this Court, on September 14, 1993, dismissed the
administrative
cases against Judge Abesamis AM No. RTJ-89-348 and AM No.
90-11-332-SB,
as well as that filed by Flores against Judge Teodoro Regino, Abesamis'
"pair judge."
2. Also patently without
foundation in fact and incapable of tenable explanation, is the case
filed
by Flores on December 21, 1995 against Judge Abesamis in the Office of
the Ombudsman CPL No. 95-3618 [A. M. No. SC-96-1] "for alleged
bias
and prejudice" attendant upon the Orders of February 16, June 6, and
December
10, 1990. For on December 21, 1995, Flores was fully aware of the
following
material events indubitably demonstrating the absence of any cause for
complaint on his part:
a. Judge Regino's
Order
dated April 16, 1990 had been upheld in no uncertain terms by this
Court's
Resolution of September 14, 1993 [A. M. No. RTJ-90-505] which declared
that "the pertinent facts and law involved were utterly inconsistent
with
the truth of the charges levelled at him." The ruling is implicit but
no
less clear affirmation of the correctness of two Orders of Judge
Abesamis:
[1] that of February 16, 1990 which Judge Regino sustained in his
aforesaid Order of April 16, 1990; and [2] that of June 6, 1990
which
denied reconsideration of Judge Regino's order of April 16, 1990.
b. Indeed, he
[Flores]
had directly assailed (a) Judge Abesamis' Order of February 16, 1990,
(b)
Judge Regino's Order of April 16, 1990 confirming said Order, and (c)
Judge
Abesamis' Order of June 6, 1990, denying Flores' motion for
reconsideration
of Regino's Order of April 16, 1990, in a certiorari action in the
Court
of Appeals [CA-G. R. SP No. 22201], and said Court had confirmed the
correctness
of all three orders, in its Decision dated October 31, 1990. The
Appellate
Court then denied reconsideration, by Resolution of February 26, 1991;
and Flores' appeal to this Court, docketed as G. R. No. 97556, was
dismissed
for lack of merit.
c. So, too, Flores'
challenges to two other Orders of Judge Abesamis of June 25, 1990
[denying Flores' motion for his inhibition] and of December 10, 1990
[decreeing
execution in favor of Ligon after Flores refused to present
countervailing
evidence on the matter] were decided adversely to him by the
Court
of Appeals in CA-G. R. SP No. 22881 [motion for reconsideration of
decision
denied on August 12, 1991]. (N.B.: Later, said orders were also
sustained
by this Court's First Division in G. R. No. 101152, decided jointly
with
G. R. No. 97556 on July 29, 1996).
It is clear, in other words,
that when Flores initiated CPL No. 95-3618 [A. M. No. SC-96-1], he knew
that the specific Orders of Judge Abesamis upon which his criminal
complaint
was grounded had already been sustained by higher courts, and
consequently,
his complaint was completely devoid of merit.
3. Even assuming arguendo
that there was reasonable ground for belief on Flores' part that Judge
Abesamis was refraining from acting on his motions, out of bias or
hostility
or other improper motive, there were obvious judicial remedies readily
available to him to obtain relief the existence and availability
of which precluded his resort to criminal, civil or administrative
proceedings
against the Judge.cralaw:red
As everyone knows, the
law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities
being
committed by a Trial Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The
ordinary
remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as
normal
in nature [i.e., error in appreciation or admission of evidence,
or in construction or application of procedural or substantive law or
legal
principle] include a motion for reconsideration [or after rendition of
a judgment or final order, a motion for new trial], and appeal. The
extraordinary
remedies against error or irregularities which may be deemed
extraordinary
in character [i.e., whimsical, capricious, despotic exercise of
power or neglect of duty, etc.] are inter alia the special civil
actions
of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a
petition
for change of venue, as the case may be.cralaw:red
Now, the established
doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal
actions
against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute
for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort
to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of
judgment
in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the
taking
of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether
of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the
available
judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal,
civil
or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed.cralaw:red
Flores resorted to administrative
prosecution [or institution of criminal actions] as a substitute for or
supplement to the specific modes of appeal or review provided by law
from
court judgments or orders, on the theory that the Judges' orders had
caused
him "undue injury." This is impermissible, as this Court has already
more
than once ruled. Law and logic decree that "administrative or criminal
remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review
where
such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof" (See In
Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382, 417-418 [1987]; In Re: Joaquin TBorromeo, 241 SCRA 405 [1995]). Indeed, since judges must be free to
judge,
without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they
should
not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or
administrative
sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the
performance
of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be
recognized
independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts
done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith; and that
exceptionally, prosecution of a judge can be had only if "there be a
final
declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the
manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, and. also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable
negligence,
on the part of the judge in rendering said judgment or order" or under
the stringent circumstances set out in Article 32 of the Civil Code
[See
In Re: Joaquin TBorromeo, at pp. 464-465].cralaw:red
Flores thus abused the
processes of the court. He resorted in 1989 and 1990 to the
administrative
procedure for disciplining Judges prescribed by law, and even to
criminal
prosecution, notwithstanding that determination of the correctness of
the
orders of Judges Abesamis and Regino upon which the viability of
his recourse depended had not yet been made by the Court of
Appeals
or this Court before which said orders were then pending review. For
obviously,
until and unless there was an authoritative pronouncement that those
orders
were indeed tainted by anomaly, as was his contention, there was no
ground
whatever to prosecute Judge Abesamis or Regino, either administratively
or criminally, for rendering them. In fine, Flores filed his
administrative
and criminal complaints prematurely, before ascertainment of the
existence
of foundation therefor; and it would appear that improper motives
underlay
the filing of his complaints: either to vent his wrath against someone,
anyone, because of his frustrations in his attempts to regain
possession
of the cockpit, or to so intimidate the respondent Judges as to make
them
more malleable in their subsequent actuations with respect to his
future
motions.cralaw:red
What is worse is that
after his administrative and criminal accusations filed in 1989 and
1990,
as well as his judicial assaults against particular orders of Judge
Abesamis,
had been thrown out for lack of merit, Flores again filed on December
21,
1995 charges involving the same matters against Deputy Court
Administrator
Abesamis, in the Office of the Ombudsman where it was docketed as CPL
No.
95-3618. As above stated, this complaint was later made the basis of
another
administrative proceeding in this Court, identified as A. M. No.
SC-96-1,
which Flores actively prosecuted. He thereby manifested what can only
be
considered an insolent disregard of this Court's adjudgments. Knowing
that
his earlier accusations and theories had already been ruled by this
Court
to be without merit and accordingly rejected, he sought to re-ventilate
the same theories and accusations two years later, completely ignoring,
and demonstrating disdain for, this Court's resolutions thereon.cralaw:red
Not only was the complaint
he filed utterly without merit, as he very well knew; in filing it he
also
utilized the administrative disciplinary procedure provided by law for
his own purposes. His motives must again be as suspect, as those
attendant
upon his earlier accusations.cralaw:red
Finally, his initiation
of the complaint was forum-shopping of the most blatant sort, a clear
attempt
to re-ventilate or re-litigate issues already passed upon and
definitively
resolved by this Court, affirming action on those same issues by the
Court
of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.cralaw:red
In fine, Flores is more
than preponderantly shown by the evidence to have, more than once: (1)
instituted criminal as well as administrative proceedings against Judge
Abesamis [and Judge Regino] which he knew to be completely without
basis
in fact; (2) resorted to administrative and criminal prosecution
contemporaneously
with, and prior to exhaustion of, judicial remedies against the acts
complained
of; and (3) engaged in forum-shopping. He is guilty of abuse of the
process
or proceedings of the courts, and of improper conduct tending to
obstruct
or degrade the administration of justice (Section 3,
Rule
71 of the Rules of Court).cralaw:red
It would appear that
Flores cannot accept the fact that the earlier judgments and orders
rendered
in his favor by this Court and others in several actions have already
been
superseded and rendered functus officio by later verdicts, in
light
of supervening events. Notwithstanding the clear pronouncements in said
later verdicts which have since become final and executory, not to
mention
his long unpaid debt to Ligon, he remains inordinately obsessed with
the
prior adjudgments, insisting they have not been superseded and
continually
referring to them in his motions and pleadings as a source of right,
even
after their supersession; in fact, with no little obduracy, he has
quite
recently adverted to them again in substantiation of his claim of
unjust deprivation of the cockpit in question in (1) a tract
entitled
"Appeal for Justice Only for the Purpose of Securing Justice and Not To
Malign or Smear Any One," which he has caused to be printed and
distributed,
as well as in (2) a pleading entitled "Petitioner's Appeal for
Justice,"
filed without authority under date of April 18, 1997. It may well be
that
he felt and still feels sorely aggrieved by the procedural maneuvers of
his adversary, Ligon, who thereby succeeded in not only delaying but
eventually
preventing execution of the previous orders of the Regional Trial Court
of Quezon City, the Court of Appeals and this Court, and which
maneuvers,
it may be mentioned, were denounced in no uncertain terms as
repetitious
and dilatory, by the Court of Appeals. But those feelings of resentment
and frustration engendered by Ligon's maneuvers cannot justify the
oppressive
acts perpetrated against completely blameless Judges, and for which he
(Flores) is himself made responsible in the contempt proceeding at bar.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Atty. Damaso
S. Flores is declared guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to pay
a fine of One Thousand Pesos [P1,000.00].cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco, Panganiban,
Hermosisima
Jr. and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Melo and Puno,
JJ., took no part.
Kapunan, J.,
is on leave. |