THIRD
DIVISION
ATTY.
REXEL M. PACURIBOT,
Complainant,
A. M. No. RTJ-97-1382
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
95-22-RTJ]
July 17, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.,
Respondent.
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:
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
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.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban,
JJ., concur.
________________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Annex I, Comment.
[2]
Castaños vs. Escaño, Jr., 251 SCRA 174, 197 [1995] citing
Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 112, 135 [1985];
Slade
Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly 35 Phil.
944;
Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; Montalban vs.
Canonoy,
38 SCRA I.
[3]
Ibid., citing De Guia vs. Guerrero, Jr., 234 SCRA 625, 630 [1994]; Baja
vs. Macandong, 158 SCRA 391, 398 [1988].
[4]
Kalilid Wood Industries Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 197 SCRA 735,
745 [1991] citing Geronimo vs. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435, 443 [1985].
[5]
Annex E, Complaint. |