SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1149 June 30, 1980

ZENECIO BARRIOS, Complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE LEONIDES J. LLAMAS of Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro, Respondent.

AQUINO, J.:

Zenecio Barrios in his verified complaint dated November 2, 1975 charged respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and notoriously disgraceful and immoral conduct.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

1. Ignorance of the law. - According to respondent judge's version, his wife, who was employed in Iloilo City, visited him in February, 1973 in Magsaysay, Occidental Mindoro where he was stationed as a municipal judge (he is now circuit municipal judge of Abra de Ilog Paluan of the same province).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

While in the public market, respondent's wife was informed by Engracia Olivares and Erlinda Tan that the judge was having amorous relations with Evelyn Pilar, a casual employee in the office of the election registrar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That information infuriated Mrs. Llamas. She rushed to the office of Evelyn Pilar in the municipal building and had an altercation with her in the presence of many persons.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For several days, Mrs. Llamas did not speak to the respondent and, as he confessed, he could not concentrate on the task of writing the decision in Civil Case No. 6, Felipe de los Reyes versus Estanislao Reyes, Sr., an ejectment case. He decided the case on February 14, 1973.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

That circumstance gave the respondent the Idea that he should treat the misconduct of Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan as a contempt incident in the ejectment case although the two were not parties in that case. The respondent theorized that the rumormongering tended to obstruct and degrade the administration of justice in the ejectment case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

So, he issued an order dated February 13, 1973 in the ejectment case requiring the talebearers Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan, to explain within seventy-two hours from notice why they should not be held in contempt of court "for spreading wild and ugly rumors touching on the official and personal integrity of the court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As respondent explained, the order was designed to enable him to have a confrontation with the gossipers. The two appeared in court, answered the charge and promised not to smear the judge's good name.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

However, when they persisted in spreading the same calumny the judge issued on March 13, 1973 another order not in the ejectment case but from the "Office of the Municipal Judge".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In that order, he "cited for contempt" the two gossipers, meaning he found them guilty of contempt of court and directed Mrs. Olivares to pay a fine of ten pesos and Mrs. Tan to Pay a fine of twenty pesos within twelve hours from notice and, if they failed to do so, they would "be put behind bars for twenty-four hours." chanrobles virtual law library

Afraid of being incarcerated in the calaboose the two rumormongers Paid the fines immediately. Mrs. Olivares, who is a comadre of the respondent, executed in connection with this administrative case an affidavit wherein she stated that she had nothing to do with the filing thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We hold that the respondent erred in holding Mrs. Olivares and Mrs. Tan in contempt of court. They were defamers not contemnors The fact that they slandered the judge did not mean that they committed contempt of court. A criminal action for defamation could have been brought against them but not a contempt proceeding. Much less could they have been held in contempt of court in the ejectment case to which they were strangers.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Contempt, which used to be a provisional remedy (Rule 64 of the 1940 Rules of Court), is a special civil action in the present Rules of Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Of course, a court has the inherent power ' to punish contempt but the fact that a judge, as distinguished from the court to which he is assigned, is exposed to public ridicule, discredit or dishonor by reason of his private conduct does not mean that the libeler has committed contempt of court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In its broad sense, contempt constitutes "a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity". "In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court." (17 C. J. S. 5.) chanrobles virtual law library

For having mistakenly used his office in an oppressive and vindicative manner against the two rumormongers, a fine equivalent to his salary for one month is imposed on the respondent and, furthermore, he deserves a severe censure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2. Immoral conduct. - Complainant Barrios who, according to the respondent, was a disgruntled litigant in his court, also charged the judge with having maintained amorous relations with his clerk stenographer Evelyn Magallanes (Not to be confounded with Evelyn Pilar), even using the courtroom as a motel.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent denied the charge. He explained that Miss Magallanes is the younger sister of his friend, Edgardo Magallanes, and that he could not possibly have used his sala, a very public place, as the venue for having an illicit relationship with her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The respondent further explained that it was not probable that he would commit immorality because he is an exseminarian a devout Catholic and a member of the cursillo movement and the Knights of Columbus.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We find respondent's detailed answer to the immorality charge to be satisfactory and adequate for his exoneration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, in connection with the first charge, the fine already mentioned is imposed on the respondent and, in addition, he is severely reprimanded. He is warned that a more drastic penalty will be imposed on him if he commits another irregularity. A copy of this decision should be attached to his personal record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.