ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-97-1382. July 17, 1997]
ATTY. REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Complainant, vs. 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 Attorneys 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 complaint 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 a privy to the aforesaid criminal
case as he is not he 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
judges 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 courts 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 complainants part because the court, motu propio,
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
latters 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 retaliation or
vindication.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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.4chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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
respondents part. Respondents 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.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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. Complainants 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 respondents 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.
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., (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Annex 1, Comment.
2 Castanos v. Escano, 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, 158 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.