ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 159288. September 20, 2006]

JOHNSON LEE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 20, 2006.

RESOLUTION. G.R. No. 159288 (Johnson Lee v. People of the Philippines)

This refers to a Motion for Contempt filed by petitioner Johnson Lee dated January 17, 2006 against one Ban Hua Flores. Petitioner alleges that respondent Ban Hua Flores, who is not a party to the instant case, has committed "certain recorded acts of undue interference in the regular course of the proceedings." Petitioner claims that these acts, which were made in connection with the adverse Decision of the Supreme Court promulgated on October 19, 2004 and became final on July 12, 2005, cannot go unnoticed and must be sanctioned.

Petitioner further avers that the instant case, which arose out of an intra-corporate controversy, is a matter between petitioner and private respondent Neugene Marketing Inc. (NMI). He points out that respondent Ban Hua Flores, who is neither a stockholder, director nor officer of said corporation, had been sending several letters ^[1] cralaw addressed to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. asking for an early resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. After entry of judgment, respondent continued to send letters ^[2] cralaw addressed to the Chief Justice, expressing concern over the delay in the transmittal of records and requesting for an investigation on the same. Acting on this request, the Chief Justice referred the matter to Atty. Ludichi Y. Nunag, Second Division Clerk of Court and required her to submit a report thereto. At the same time, Atty. Nunag duly responded ^[3] cralaw to Ban Hua Flores' query which was also followed by a letter ^[4] cralaw from Atty. Teresita Dimaisip, Chief, Judicial Records Office. Therein, both SC officials explained the time element involved in transmitting the records of the case from the time the case has attained finality. Respondent continued to send letters to said officials, expressing her dismay in the alleged delay with threats of filing administrative cases against them, copies furnished to then Chief Justice Davide and Associate Justice Reynato Puno. ^[5] cralaw Petitioner imputes that respondent is insinuating an irregularity in the court processes which is quite offensive to the Court, for which reason she should be held in contempt.

In her Comment dated April 19, 2006, respondent related the factual backdrop that spurred her to write the numerous letters mentioned in the Motion for Contempt. She is one of the members of the Uy Family that funded the creation and organization of NMI. She initiated the filing of estafa cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 & 10011) in the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City against petitioner and Sonny Moreno, then President and General Manager of NMI, when the latter refused to turn over to the trustees of NMI the proceeds of the sale of empty bags in the total amount of P1,500,150.00 after NMI's dissolution. The estafa cases were filed way back in 1991, where respondent is the principal witness against the accused and the cases are still in their trial stages.

Respondent clarifies that the letters she sent were not complaints over the delay in the resolution of the case. In fact, she was only too happy with the promptness by which the Court resolved the case, within four (4) months after the records had been elevated to it. Her concerns involved purely administrative matters, particularly in the transmitting of the records to the trial court which took about three (3) months from entry of judgment. There is no mention about the merits of the case in her letters.

Undoubtedly, respondent's tenacity of sending letters to the Court appears to be reprehensible, if not annoying. However, after a careful perusal of the pleadings and the letters adverted to in the Motion for Contempt, we find no sufficient ground to hold her in contempt of court.

Contempt of court is defined as disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. ^[6] cralaw

In the instant case, the Court finds no contemptuous intent on her part to impede the administration of justice. Respondent's apprehensions are not without basis. She only prays for a speedy transmission of records so as to continue with the protracted criminal proceedings in the trial court. Her snide remarks or even sarcastic innuendoes do not necessarily assume that level of contumely actionable under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. ^[7] cralaw Admittedly, her ire is actually not directed to the court nor to the officials concerned but to herein petitioner, who according to the respondent has a penchant for delaying the case in his favor.

The Court finds respondent's explanation in her Comment satisfactory. Courts must be slow to punish for contempt. The salutary rule is that, the power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not on the vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. Only occasionally should the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice may falter or fail. Such power being drastic and extraordinary in its nature should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice. ^[8] cralaw

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Contempt is DENIED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Dated February 18, 2005, rollo, p. 300; dated May 23, 2005, rollo , p. 369; dated July 7, 2005, rollo , p. 381; dated August 10, 2005, rollo , p. 389.

^[2] cralaw Letter dated August 30, 2005, rollo, p. 406; dated September 30, 2005, rollo , p. 418.

^[3] cralaw Letter dated October 10, 2005; rollo, p. 436.

^[4] cralaw Letter dated November 7, 2005; rollo, p. 438.

^[5] cralaw Dated October 27, 2005, rollo, p. 448; dated December 2, 2005, rollo , p. 456.

^[6] cralaw Honasan , II v. The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice, G.R. No. 159747, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 151, 155.

^[7] cralaw Soriano v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 226, 254 (2001).

^[8] cralaw Id.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011