August 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > August 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175147 : August 21, 2007] JOSEPH ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO V. GOV. BEN EVARDONE :
[G.R. No. 175147 : August 21, 2007]
JOSEPH ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO V. GOV. BEN EVARDONE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 21, 2007
G.R. No. 175147 (Joseph Estrada and Pwersa Ng Masang Pilipino v. Gov. Ben Evardone)
This refers to the Petition to Cite for Contempt of Court dated November 6, 2006 filed against herein respondent, Governor Ben Evardone of the Province of Eastern Samar, spokesman of the Union of the Local Authorities of the Philippines, for statements made by him relative to this Court's Decision in Raul Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 174153 & 174299, promulgated on October 25, 2006, which allegedly tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. In the Lambino case, the Court dismissed the petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution.
The petitioners alleged that they were intervenors in the Lambino case, while respondent was an active proponent of the people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners claim that respondent made derogatory statements, as reported in an item in the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated October 28, 2006, as follows:
For his part, respondent answered that he must have been misquoted or that his statements were taken out of context. He insists that he merely mentioned the possibility that then Chief Justice Panganiban may run for the Senate after his retirement, since this talk had been going around the Senate circles. He professes no ill motive against the Chief Justice and fully respects the decision of the Supreme Court in the Lambino Case. He added that his statements had nothing to do with the Chief Justice's role in said case. The respondent further explained that there was nothing contumacious with what he said about the Chief Justice as the possibility of running for an elected post was not farfetched based on factual precedence, normal political settings and political parties' recruitment. Moreover, the statements were done after the Decision of the Court had been promulgated. There was, therefore, nothing to be impeded, obstructed or degraded. A distinction must be made between criticisms of pending and concluded litigation. Further, the alleged contumacious publication is protected by the mantle of freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution.[4]
At the outset, it must be noted that the instant petition has already become moot and academic on account of the recently concluded elections which necessarily discharged the parties' allegations and speculations in this case. The elections are over, and Chief Justice Panganiban did not run for any elective position. This notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon the Court to determine if the respondent is indeed liable for indirect contempt.
In A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, July 29, 2002 (In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law case hurled by Atty. Leonard de Vera), the Court held that:
In the instant case, the petitioners aver that the respondent should be held liable for his improper conduct in making allegedly irresponsible statements directed against the dignity or authority of the Court; or of an act which tends to place the Court into disrepute or disrespect.
After a careful consideration of the parties' arguments, we do not find respondent's statements contemptuous. The Court finds sufficient and acceptable the explanation of respondent that he had no intention to undermine the integrity of the Chief Justice, much less that of the Court so as to degrade the administration of justice. There is nothing in his statements that insinuate or suggest that the Court was susceptible to influence in Lambino. Neither is there anything in his statements that can be considered as a malicious attack on the proceedings of the Court as to cast doubt on the integrity of the Court. To be sure, respondent even stated that he abides by, and respects, the decision of the Court, and was willing to go through the usual remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration, or simply to push anew for the third mode to amend the Charter.[6] His remarks about the Chief Justice eyeing a Senate seat were mere speculations/personal observations based on a precedent not derogatory or contumacious enough to warrant sanction from the Court.
We have held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, as it is essential to their right of self-preservation. Courts are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with the power to impose silence, respect and decorum in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates, and as corollary to this proposition, to preserve themselves and their officers from the approach of insults and pollution. Judges are enjoined to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the Court and not for retaliation or vindication.[7] Thus, being a drastic and extraordinary remedy, the power of contempt should not be exercised unless clearly necessary in the interest of justice.[8]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 175147 (Joseph Estrada and Pwersa Ng Masang Pilipino v. Gov. Ben Evardone)
This refers to the Petition to Cite for Contempt of Court dated November 6, 2006 filed against herein respondent, Governor Ben Evardone of the Province of Eastern Samar, spokesman of the Union of the Local Authorities of the Philippines, for statements made by him relative to this Court's Decision in Raul Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 174153 & 174299, promulgated on October 25, 2006, which allegedly tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. In the Lambino case, the Court dismissed the petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution.
The petitioners alleged that they were intervenors in the Lambino case, while respondent was an active proponent of the people's initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. The petitioners claim that respondent made derogatory statements, as reported in an item in the Philippine Daily Inquirer dated October 28, 2006, as follows:
Xiamen - Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban is running for senator in the May 2007 elections under the opposition banner, if Eastern Samar Gov. Ben Evardone is to be believed.The same statements were also subject of the editorial of the October 30, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads:
Evardone, who is in this city as part of the official delegation accompanying President Macapagal-Arroyo in her trip to China, claimed that Panganiban's purported candidacy was the talk going around the Senate circle.
They're saying that '[Panganiban] wants to do a Fernan,' he said, referring to the late Senate President and former Chief Justice.
After Fernan retired as Chief Justice, he won a seat in the Senate and went on to head the chamber.
He then sought the presidency but eventually decided to run for vice-president, and ended up losing to Joseph Estrada.
We have heard that the (Panganiban) might run, and I will not be surprised if he will be picked up by the opposition, Evardone said."[1]
Those whom the gods by the Pasig River wish to destroy, they first call political. Consider the cavalier words offered by Eastern Samar Gov. Ben Evardone to explain last week's 8-7 vote in the Supreme Court. The spokesman of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, the people's initiative petitioner closely identified with the Arroyo administration, insinuated, without taking responsibility for his allegation, that Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was running for the Senate. We have heard he might run and I will not be surprised if he will be picked up by the opposition," he told reporters traveling with President Macapagal-Arroyo in China."The petitioners alleged that respondent's statements gave the concrete message that the decision of the Court was tainted with political motives, particularly referring to the Chief Justice who voted against the people's initiative. Petitioners further averred that:
The object of his ire, of course, was the reported swing vote in the close decision; as Chief Justice Panganiban enjoys the privilege of voting last. The object of Evardone's unfriendly fire was even more obvious: he wanted to taint the decision that junked the people's initiative, by baselessly ascribing partisan, political motives to those who voted against the bid.[2]
The petitioners, therefore, pray that the respondent be adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against the Chief Justice, for improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, and be punished by fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.xxx
8. The aforesaid statement of respondent clearly and directly constitutes improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct, embarrass and degrade the administration of justice by this Honorable Court, in the same manner that the same statement tends directly or indirectly taint the honor and integrity of the Honorable Chief Justice of this Honorable Court and all other magistrates of this Honorable Court and humiliate them before the public eye.
9. Such most contumacious statement and most rude, uncivil and extremely impolite conduct of respondent can not be left unpunished. The name, honor and integrity of the Honorable Chief Justice of this Honorable Court, all its other honorable magistrates and this Honorable Court itself must be upheld at all times and they can not just be cavalierly treated and vilified by anyone, much less by a public official.
10. For his legally unwarranted statement and conduct in the premises, respondent clearly merits punishment and should be cited for contempt of court. Such punishment is most imperative: a) to preserve and protect the name, honor and integrity of Honorable Chief Justice of this Honorable Court, all its honorable magistrates and this Honorable Court itself from highly irresponsible, reckless, baseless and most civil assaults, b) to teach respondent a concrete lesson in good manners and right conduct as a public official and c) by way of concrete example to those who might be similarly minded or inclined to unfairly and unjustly assault this Honorable Court and its honorable magistrates with reckless and baseless pronouncements.[3]
For his part, respondent answered that he must have been misquoted or that his statements were taken out of context. He insists that he merely mentioned the possibility that then Chief Justice Panganiban may run for the Senate after his retirement, since this talk had been going around the Senate circles. He professes no ill motive against the Chief Justice and fully respects the decision of the Supreme Court in the Lambino Case. He added that his statements had nothing to do with the Chief Justice's role in said case. The respondent further explained that there was nothing contumacious with what he said about the Chief Justice as the possibility of running for an elected post was not farfetched based on factual precedence, normal political settings and political parties' recruitment. Moreover, the statements were done after the Decision of the Court had been promulgated. There was, therefore, nothing to be impeded, obstructed or degraded. A distinction must be made between criticisms of pending and concluded litigation. Further, the alleged contumacious publication is protected by the mantle of freedom of expression enshrined in our Constitution.[4]
At the outset, it must be noted that the instant petition has already become moot and academic on account of the recently concluded elections which necessarily discharged the parties' allegations and speculations in this case. The elections are over, and Chief Justice Panganiban did not run for any elective position. This notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon the Court to determine if the respondent is indeed liable for indirect contempt.
In A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC, July 29, 2002 (In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law case hurled by Atty. Leonard de Vera), the Court held that:
The judiciary, as the branch of government tasked to administer justice, to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of wrongs for the violation of said rights must be allowed to decide cases independently, free from outside influence or pressure. An independent judiciary is essential to the maintenance of democracy, as well as of peace and order in society. Maintaining the dignity of courts and enforcing the duty of citizens to respect them are necessary adjuncts to the administration of justice.Thus, Rule 71, Section 3(d)[5] authorizes the Court to hold liable for indirect contempt a person guilty of any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
In the instant case, the petitioners aver that the respondent should be held liable for his improper conduct in making allegedly irresponsible statements directed against the dignity or authority of the Court; or of an act which tends to place the Court into disrepute or disrespect.
After a careful consideration of the parties' arguments, we do not find respondent's statements contemptuous. The Court finds sufficient and acceptable the explanation of respondent that he had no intention to undermine the integrity of the Chief Justice, much less that of the Court so as to degrade the administration of justice. There is nothing in his statements that insinuate or suggest that the Court was susceptible to influence in Lambino. Neither is there anything in his statements that can be considered as a malicious attack on the proceedings of the Court as to cast doubt on the integrity of the Court. To be sure, respondent even stated that he abides by, and respects, the decision of the Court, and was willing to go through the usual remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration, or simply to push anew for the third mode to amend the Charter.[6] His remarks about the Chief Justice eyeing a Senate seat were mere speculations/personal observations based on a precedent not derogatory or contumacious enough to warrant sanction from the Court.
We have held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, as it is essential to their right of self-preservation. Courts are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their very creation, with the power to impose silence, respect and decorum in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates, and as corollary to this proposition, to preserve themselves and their officers from the approach of insults and pollution. Judges are enjoined to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the Court and not for retaliation or vindication.[7] Thus, being a drastic and extraordinary remedy, the power of contempt should not be exercised unless clearly necessary in the interest of justice.[8]
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 5. (Emphasis supplied)
[2] Id. at 6. (Emphasis supplied)
[3] Id. at 7-8.
[4] Id at 28-30.
[5] SEC. 3. Indirect Contempt to be punished after charge and hearing - After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
[6] "Cha-cha backer says Panganiban eyeing Senate," Philippine Daily Inquirer, Saturday, October 23, 2006; rollo, p. 10.
[7] Republic Real Estate Corporation v. Regina Jimenez-David, G.R. No. 134677, Resolution dated June 19, 2001.
[8] Jose T. Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 138480 & 139449, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 309, 318.
