Charges were filed against respondent municipal judge Andres Ma. Delgado of Don Carlos, Bukidnon, by Atty. Fabian Gardones and by the Department of Justice.

Atty. Gardones charges the respondent with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of official authority in that the respondent municipal judge caused his arrest for an alleged direct contempt without hearing, by reason of which he was confined in the municipal jail of Don Carlos from 6:30 in the evening of September 8, 1969 until 11:00 o'clock in the morning of September 9, 1969.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It appears that complainant Atty. Gardones failed to obey the subpoena issued by the respondent requiring him to appear in the morning of September 8, 1969 as a witness in the preliminary examination of a criminal case of homicide through reckless imprudence, which subpoena was duly received by complainant; and that during the said preliminary examination complainant repeatedly drove his jeepney back and forth along the road fronting the court session hall between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 in the morning of September 8, 1969, and repeatedly blew its horn, interrupting for at least three times the preliminary examination then being conducted by the respondent. In his order dated September 8, 1969, respondent judge found complainant Gardones guilty of direct contempt for: (1) having failed to obey the subpoena directing him to appear in court; and (2) having driven his jeep to and from along the highway fronting the municipal building which tended "directly to impede, obstruct and delay the administration of justice" (Exh. D attached to complaint).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The failure to obey subpoena constitutes indirect, not direct, contempt, for which the complainant could not be adjudged guilty without hearing him or without due process of law. The respondent judge therefore gravely erred in so ordering the arrest of the complainant for such indirect contempt without giving him his day in court, which is grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. While it is true that the complainant committed direct contempt for having disturbed the preliminary examination then being conducted by the respondent judge by repeatedly driving his jeep and honking its horn in the vicinity of the court session hall, for which the complainant was ordered arrested and confined in jail, the respondent should have issued a separate order for such direct contempt, and another order requiring complainant to show cause why he should not be punished for disobedience to its process, to give the complainant a chance to explain his failure to appear as witness.

The other charge against the respondent is embodied in the letter of then Undersecretary of Justice Efren I. Plana, dated September 4, 1972 addressed to the respondent which reads thus:

Before us are two orders issued by you on January 7, 1972 and November 18, 1970, respectively, in Criminal Case No. 207, entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo Uba-ub,' for illegal possession of counterfeit bills, and Criminal Case No. 137, captioned people of the Philippines vs. Sebastian Baiña, Leoncio Genesi, Juanito Parcon and Cirilo Cuenza,' for estafa. The orders aforesaid, handed down after you had conducted the second state of the preliminary investigation required by the Rules of Court, decreed the dismissal, with costs de officio, of the criminal cases in question and the immediate release of the accused therein, if in custody, supposedly upon the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It must be noted at the outset that, as charged in the complaint filed by Chief of Police Amancio P. Tira, which complaint was copied and adverted to in your order of dismissal, the accused Abelardo Uba-ub in Criminal Case No. 207, was indicted for illegal possession of counterfeit bills. It must be observed, too, that as found by you in your order of dismissal, the said accused was, in fact, caught in possession of the subject counterfeit bills. In the context of these circumstances, we are at a loss as to how you could have seen your way clear into dismissing the case against accused Uba-ub supposedly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Uba-ub did pass or utter the counterfeit bills in question.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering the above circumstances, and considering moreover that the dismissal of both criminal cases, with costs de oficio for alleged failure of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt could only have been ordered after trial on the merits, and the preliminary investigation conducted by you was not a trial on the merits, as in fact it was not even a part of it, you are hereby directed to explain, within five (5) days from receipt of this communication, why you dismissed the case against accused Uba-ub for lack of evidence that he passed or circulated the counterfeit bills, when the charge against him was for illegal possession of counterfeit bills and he was in fact caught in possession of said bills, and why you dismissed the said two cases with costs de oficio allegedly on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt despite the fact that you had not tried both cases on the merits. Failure on your part to so explain within the period allotted will constrain us to take administrative action against you.