April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J : April 24, 2012]
RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR., AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
"A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J - (RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR., AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS)
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution dated January 31, 2012, the Court dismissed for lack of merit the administrative complaint filed by Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco against Court of Appeals Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Florito S. Macalino; and directed Engr. Ongjoco to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt of court for: (a) degrading the judicial office of respondent Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals; and (b) interfering with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary.
In compliance with the show-cause order, Engr. Ongjoco submitted his explanation on March 13, 2012, wherein he reiterated his complaint but denied having any intention of harassing, intimidating or disrespecting the Judiciary, insisting that his complaint was filed in good faith and in support of the crusade to eradicate unscrupulous public officials from the Judiciary.
The Court finds the explanation offered by Engr. Ongjoco unsatisfactory.
We stress that contempt of court not only signifies a willful disregard of or disobedience to the orders of a duly-constituted court, but also such conduct that tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law and justice into disrepute or to impede the due administration of justice in some manner.[1]
The filing by Engr. Ongjoco of his clearly unfounded and malicious complaint seriously affected the efficiency of the members of the Judiciary in administering fair, speedy and impartial justice.[2] It appears from his explanation that Engr. Ongjoco failed to comprehend that his unsubstantiated charges served no other purpose than to harass respondent Associate Justices and to cast doubt on the integrity of the Judiciary as a whole. Moreover, his filing of the baseless administrative complaint effectively clogged the docket of the Court, thereby contributing to the delays in the administration of justice. The complaint, which he could not substantiate with admissible evidence of any kind on the alleged illegal maneuverings of respondent Associate Justices, was a brazen display of disrespect towards the judicial act and dignity of respondent Associate Justices as well as to the courts. Such conduct and attitude clearly constituted indirect contempt that must be accordingly dealt with.
Under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000.00, or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Upon consideration of the circumstances, the Court imposes a fine of P5,000.00.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES AND PRONOUNCES ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT, and ORDERS him to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 within ten days from notice hereof."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988, February 6, 2007, 514 SCRA 616, 627; Lu Ym v. Mahinay, G.R. No. 169476, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 253, 261-262; Lee v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 85, G.R. No. 146006, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 538, 552.[2] Racines v. Morallos, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698, March 3, 2008, 547 SCRA 295, 300.