[G.R. No. 134677.June 19, 2001]
REPUBLIC
REAL ESTATE CORP. vs. JIMENEZ-DAVID
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 19 2001.
G.R. No. 134677 (Republic Real Estate Corporation,
petitioner, vs. Regina Jimenez-David, respondent.)
G.R. No. 134914 (Republic Real Estate Corporation,
petitioner, vs. Baltazar Endriga, respondents.)
Where does one draw the
line between the seminal right of a free press to comment and criticize and the
fundamental duty of the judiciary to ensure a fair administration of justice?This is the crucial query which confronts
the Court today.
For resolution,
as incidents of the consolidated cases of Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.
103882 and G.R. No. 105276, decided on November 25, 1998, 1
These are two consolidated petitions
for review on certiorari involving 55 hectares of the reclaimed area in Pasay
City.On June 22, 1957, Republic Act
No. 1899 (RA 1899), a law authorizing the reclamation of foreshore lands by
chartered cities and municipalities was approved.Pursuant to this law, the Pasay City Council passed Ordinance No.
121 which empowers the City Mayor to award and enter into reclamation
contracts.On April 24, 1959, Pasay
City and Real Estate Corporation (RREC) entered into an Agreement for the
reclamation of the foreshore lands in
Pasay City.The Republic of the
Philippines (Republic) filed an Amended Complaint with the former Court of
First Instance of Rizal, questioning the Agreement on the ground that the
subject matter thereof is outside the commerce of man, that its terms and
conditions are violative of RA 1899, and that the said Agreement was executed
without any public bidding.On March
24, 1972, the trial court dismissed the complaint and enjoined Pasay City and
RREC "to have all the plans and specifications in the reclamations approved by
the Director of Public Works and to have all the contracts and sub-contract for
said reclamation awarded by means of, and only after, public bidding."The Republic interposed appeal to the Court
of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51349.Pending appeal, Presidential Decree No. 3-A was issued declaring that
"the reclamation of areas under water, whether foreshore or inland, shall be
limited to the National Government or any person authorized by it under a
proper contract" and that "contracts for reclamation still legally existing or
whose validity has been accepted by the National government shall be taken over
by the National government on the basis of quantum
meruit, for proper prosecution of the project involved by
administration."On January 28, 1992,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with
modification.It ordered the Republic
to turn over to Pasay City the ownership and possession over all vacant spaces
in the twenty-one hectare area already reclaimed by Pasay City and RREC at the
time it took over the same.It also
sustained RREC's irrevocable option to purchase sixty per cent (60%) of the
Twenty-one (21) hectares of land already reclaimed area to 55 hectares.Hence, the two petitioners for review
separately filed with this Court by the Republic (G.R. No. 103882) and by Pasay
City and RREC (G.R. No. 105276).On
November 25, 1998, this Court rendered a joint Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
"WHEREFORE:
In G.R. No. 103882, the Petition if GRANTED; the
Decision, dated January 28, 1992, and Amended Decision, dated April 28, 1992,
of the Court of Appeals, are both SET ASIDE; and Pasay City Ordinance No. 121,
dated May 6, 1958, and Ordinance No. 158, dated April 21, 1959, as well as the
Reclamation Agreements entered into Pasay City and Republic Real Estate
Corporation (RREC) as authorized by said city ordinances, are declared NULL and
VOID for being ultra vires, and contrary to Rep. Act 1899.
The writ of preliminary injunction issued on April 26, 1962 by the
trial court a quo in Civil Case No.
2229-P is made permanent, and the notice of lis pendens issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 51349 ordered CANCELLED.The Register of Deeds of Pasay City is directed to take note of
and annotate on the certificated of title involved, the cancellation of subject
notice of lis pendens.
The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, is hereby
ordered to pay Pasay City and Republic Real Estate Corporation the sum of TEN
MILLION NINE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVENTY-ONE AND TWENTY-NINE CENTAVOS
(P10,926.29) PESOS, plus interest thereon of six (6%) percent per annum from
May 1, 1962 until full payment, which amount shall be divided by Pasay City and
RREC, share and share alike.
In G.R. No. 105276, the Petition is hereby DENIED for
lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED." are separate petitions for
contempt filed by Republic Real Estate Corporation (RREC) against Regina Jimenez-David (G.R. No. 134677) and against Baltazar Endriga (G.R. No. 134914).In G.R. No. 134677, petitioner RREC asks
the Court to cite in contempt respondent David, a columnist of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, for the disparaging statements she wrote in her column "At
Large" published on July 11, 1997.
The pertinent portions of
the article complained of are hereunder reproduced:
"WHEN I read the cast
of characters who make up the major stockholdeers of Republic Real Estate
Corporation, the company now claiming a major portion of the reclaimed land on
which the CCP Complex now stands, I
smelled a faint whiff of conspiracy and felt a frisson of dread for the
CCP.
How else could you get all
together in one room -- much less a corporation --- such folks as former PEA
chief Ed Zialcita, a taipan like Al Yuchenco, a wannabe taipan like
"Don" Emilio Yap, actress Jackielou blanco, and assorted
wheeler-dealers, unless they knew they had a sure thing going?As the saying goes, 'Mabigat and kalaban.'Which
doesn't make me all that optimistic about the CCP's chances before the Supreme
Court.
This doesn't mean that the
government's case is weak, or that the RREC's pleadings are so compelling as to
win public opinion to their side.Following the company's pursuit of its suit through the country's court,
the biggest impression I have is how extremely lucky it's been, especially
since after Edsa revolt, with the departure of the Marcoses.But
will the case be decided on the merits, or on other considerations?That's the question bothering everyone
concerned about the continued survivial of the Cultural Center and the
development of the Filipino art and artists." (Italics supplied).
On February 12, 1998,
another article came out in respondent David's column entitled "More stink in
CCP case," thus:
"RREC lay low in the years
following and understandably so since the country fell under martial law in
1972.But the really interesting story in this dispute is not whether RREC
has rightful claim to the land, but how certain forces and personalities in
both the Aquino and Ramos administrators seems bent on sabotaging the interests
of the CCP - and therefore of the government - to favor a group of private
investors.
In 1989, RREC filed a
claim with the government for 3.5 hectares of CCP complex property or P35
million.After the papers made the
rounds of various levels of government, RREC suddenly raised its claim to P245
million, an absurd amount that, CCP officials say, may have been posted to
ensure that government would not settle.RREC seemed eager to elevate the matter to the courts, apparently
confident of winning the case.And
indeed, it has had a remarkable record of winning, with the Office of the Solicitor General, which was supposed to argue
CCP's case being the government's 'lawyer,' putting up a lukewarm defense at
best.
x x x x x x x
x x
the
case is now due for review by the Supreme Court, but CCP officials are
pessimistic given the summary presented by the Court of Appeals which made
the claim that the evidence submitted by the government 'tends to support' the
RREC's claim.Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello, who had been arguing the CCP's case
as solicitor general, reportedly called up a CCP officials to urge him to
settle with RREC, claiming the government's case was weak.
Something smells rotten in this case, and some cynics claim one would
have to go all the way back to the fraternity ties of certain key characters to
understand the interlocking interests at work here.
When I talked with him
last week, CCP President Bal Endriga was seething, but half-way resigned to
losing or else forced to settle with RREC xxx" (Italics supplied)
Petitioner RREC contends that
these two articles tend to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
justice; that they insult the intelligence, sense of fairness and objectivity
of the Supreme Court; that they insinuate that the Court cannot render a
correct and just judgment; and that they condition the mind of the people to
expect a decision in its (petitioner's) favor.
In her comment on the
petition, respondent David maintains that the articles were not intended to
influence the Court.The statements
constitute fair and legitimate comments or opinions.And even if considered as criticisms, still, she cannot be held
guilty of indirect contempt as 'mere criticisms or comment on the correctness
or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a
pending case made in good faith may be tolerated."Finally, she invokes the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court
in Cabansag v. Fernandez 2 102 Phil 154 [1957].that freedom of speech and press
should not be impaired through the exercise of the power to punish for
contempt, unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question are serious
and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
In G.R. No. 134914, petitioner RREC asks this Court to cite in
contempt respondent Baltazar Endriga, then President of the Cultural Center of
the Philippines (CCP), for causint the publication of the article "A Plea for
Justice" in the March 8, 1998 issue of the Inquirer, quoted below:
"We the undersigned
artists, members of the artistic/cultural community, and concerned audience of
CCP events express our distress and alarm over attempts to have the National
Government/ Cultural Center of the Philippines give up 35 hectares of its prime
land at the CCP Complex on Roxas Boulevard to Pasay City/Republic Real Estate
Corporation (RREC), and thereby plead for public support.
This piece of land was
purposely granted to the CCP to develop, and thereby, earn the revenue needed
to support its programs, projects and operations as the CCP does not receive
annual budgetary appropriation from the government.Instead, because of the unsubstantiated claim of Pasay City/ RREC
over this land, the CCP has been forced to operate at a huge deficit, and has
not been able to pursue its mandate thoroughly and vigorously.As a result, Philippine artistic and
cultural growth and development have suffered.
Claiming that they were
deprived by President Marcos of what they already reclaimed in 1961-1962, Pasay
City and RREC are now doing all means to acquire 35 hectares of the CCP
Complex.
Having followed the case
throught the years, we are fully aware that the claims of Pasay City/RREC are
baseless because either reclamation activity was stopped in 1962 shortly after
RREC's founder Harry Stonehill was deported for massive corrupton by President
Diosdado Macapagal (Marcos came to power only in 1966) before they could
completely reclaim even one square meter of land to the required elevation
prescribed by the contract.Reclamation
of the CCP Complex was completed by the Department of Public Works and Highway
before the present CCP building could be constructed thereon.RREC's claim that the land was taken away
from them by President Marcos is totally false.
The falsity of Pasay
City/RREC's claim is supported by layers of overwhelming evidence (contracts,
progress reports, photographs, maps, computer analysis, testimonies of experts
on reclamation, etc.)
Their original claim from
the National Government was for just compensation for the unfinished
reclamation work that they undertook and NOT FOR LAND, which after all they had
not reclaimed.
In 1989, they filed a
claim for P39 million or, alternatively 3.5 hectares of land at the corner of
Buendia and Roxas Boulevard (Where Boom na Boom is now located) as compensation
for the work they allegedly did.The
national government agreed to the payment of P39million in cash.Pending the approval of the Commission on
Audit and the President of the Philippines, Pasay City/RREC raised their demand
for compensation to P175 million, then to 245 million which the national
government found unreasonable.
The claim became more
preposterous and ridiculous in 1992.Pasay City/RREC bloated their demand for compensation from 3.5 hectares
(now worth P2.6 billion) to 35 hectares (now worth P26 billion).Who can call this anything but UNBRIDLED
GREED?
The future of the CCP and
its cultural programs, which have national and international impact, rest on
keeping this valuable piece of property of which it is, after all, the rightful
owner."
The petition avers that the
article is contemptuous because it was published while the "case" was still
pending before this Court; and that it was intended to deceive the public and
unduly influence the Court into rendering a decision in favor of CCP.
Respondent Endriga did not
file any comment on the petition against him.
After a careful perusal of
the articles above quoted, we find respondent David alone guilty of indirect
contempt of this Court.
At the outset,
it is significant to note that while a contempt proceeding is only auxiliary to
the main case in that it proceeds out of the original case, it is essentially a
new and independent proceeding in that it involves new issued and must be
initated by the issuance and service of new process. 3 People v. Godoy, 243 SCRA 64 [1995]
(With separate Resolution in an incident in
the main case, re complaint for indirect contempt of Judge Eustaquio Z. Gacott,
Jr. against Mauricio Reynoso, Jr. and Eva Ponce De Leon, publisher of the
Palawan Times). Thus, although the present petitions are mere offshoots
of the consolidated cases of Republic v. Court of Appeals decided by this Court
three years ago, or on November 25, 1998, their resolution at this instance
cannot be characterized as moot and academic.
We shall deal first with
the two articles written by respondent David.
Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that any improper
conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice constitutes indirect contempt.This brings to the fore the cardinal issue -
whether or not the articles written by respondent David tend to impede,
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice as to constitute indirect of
this Court.
There are two (2) types of
publication of newspaper comments on proceedings in court which have been
considered in contempt proceedings, namely (1) those in which the object of the
publication is to affect the decision in a pending case or action, and (2)
those which have for their purpose the bringing of courts or judges or other
court officers into discredit. 4 A.M. No. 90-4-1545-0 (Column of Mr. Ramon Tulfo in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer issues of 13 and 16 October, 1989), citing Slade vs.
Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re: Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; In
re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595; Commission of Immigration vs. Ccloribel, G.R. No. L-
24139, August 31, 1969, 20 SCRA 1241. David's articles cover both types
of publication.
We have read and reread
the subject articles and after an objective analysis, we are convinced that
they are indeed contemptuous.Respondent David was able to convey in her two articles that this Court
is susceptible to outside influence and should the Court decide the "case" in
favor of petitioner and against CCP, it was by reason of other considerations
and not based on its merits.We quote
the derogatory statements:
How else could you get all
together in one room - much less a corporation --- such folks as former PEA
chief Ed Zialcita, a taipan like Al Yuchenco, a wannabe taipan like "Don"
Emilio Yap actress Jackielou Blanco, and assorted wheeler-dealers, unless they knew had a sure thing
going?As the saying goes, 'Mabigat and kalaban.'Which doesn't make me all the optimistic
about the CCP's chances before the Supreme Court.
This doesn't mean that the government's case is weak, or that RREC's
pleading are so compelling as to win public opinion to their side.Following the company's pursuit of its
suit through the country's court, the biggest impression I have is how
extremely lucky it's been, especially since after Edsa revolt, with the
departure of the Marcoses.But will the case be decided on the merits,
or on other considerations?
Respondent David's
statements that the above-mentioned businessmen would not have banded together
as a corporation "unless they knew they
had a sure thing going"and "[M]abigat
ang kalaban.Which does not make me all
that optimistic about the CCP's chance before the Supreme Court," case
doubts on the impartiality of this Court.They tend to create distrust and diminish the confidence of the people
in our justice system.The harm was
aggravated when respondent David left the hanging question- "[B]ut
will the case be decided on the merits, or on other considerations?"Surely, it aroused skepticism in the minds
of the public as regards the integrity of this Court.The fact that it was made in a form of question does not deprive
it of its contemptuous character.Phrasing contumacious words in the form of question will not shield respondent
David since her purpose was to convey the same idea that would have been
communicated by direct imputation.Obviously, the phrase "other
considerations" refers to outside influence.This is confirmed by her subsequent article "More stink in CCP case,"
thus:
"CCP officials became
involved only when the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and the CA not
only granted RREC's claim, but even increased the area it deemed to be legally
owned by RREC.
The case is now due for
review by the Supreme Court, but CCP officials are pessimistic given the
summary presented by the Court of Appeals which made the claim that the
evidence submitted by the government 'tends to support' the RREC's claim.Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello, who had
been arguing the CCP's case as solicitor general, reportedly called up a CCP
officials to urge him to settle with RREC, claiming the government's case was
weak.
Something smells rotten in
this case, and some cynics claim one would have to go all the way back to the
fraternity ties of certain key characters to understand the interlocking
interests at work here."
To our mind, to
characterize a particular course of action of this Court as one influenced by
powerful businessmen is an attempt to keep a tight rein in the exercise of the
Court's judicial function.It is
tantamount to persuading this Court to shy away from the course of action being
criticized.This cannot be permitted.Every citizen has a profound personal
interest in the administration of justice by the courts free from outside
influence or interference.
Respondent David cannot
claim that her statements are mere fair or legitimate comments.Jurisprudence teaches us that there is a
vast difference between criticism and fair comment on the one side and
defamation on the other.True criticism
differs from defamation in the following particulars: (1) Criticism deals only with such things as invite public
attention or call for public comment.(2) Criticism never attacks the
individual but only his work.In every
case the attack is on a man's act, or on some thing, and not upon the man
himself.A true critic never indulges
in personalities. (3) True criticism
never imputes or insinuates dishonorable motives, unless justice absolutely
requires it, and then only on the clearest proofs.(4) The critic never
takes advantage of the occasion to gratify private malice, or to attain any
other object beyond the fair discussion of matters of public interest, and the
judicial guidance of the public taste. 5 People v. Godoy, supra. Respondent David's statements
fall short of true criticisms.Despite
absence of clear proofs, she insinuated the existence of a conspiracy between
petitioner RREC and the government.She
even imputes dishonorable motives to different personalities such as Ed
Zialcita, Al Yuchengco, Emilio Yap, etc.Not to be glossed over is her expression of pessimism on what would be
the basis of the Court's decision, i.e. merit or "other considerations."
To cast doubt in the mind
of the public on the integrity of the judicial institution by malicious
imputations of disrepurt to the Supreme Court and its members does not fall
under the category of fair criticism.The right to criticise is not absolute or unlimited.It must be bona fide and should not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety.Any intemperated and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of one's duty of respect to the courts. 6
Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 166 SCRA
316 (1988).
Finally, respondent David
cannot exculpate herself by the mere invocation of the "constitutional
guarantees of freedom of the press, of speech and or expression."The inherent power of the courts to punish
any publication calculated to interfere with the administration of justice is
not restricted by the constitutional guaranties of liberty and of the press,
for liberty of the press is subordinate to the independence of the judiciary
and the proper administration of justice.Liberty of the press must not be confounded with license or abuse of
that liberty. 7 12 Am.
Jur. Sec. 32, p. 413. The rule has always been that the publication of a
criticism of a party or of the court to a pending
cause, respecting the same, is considered as misbehavior tending to
obstruct the administration of justice, and, subjects such persons to contempt
proceedings. 8 In Re
Kelly, supra. The freedom of speech may not be exercised in such a
manner as to destroy respect for the courts, the very institution which is the
guardian of such right.The dignity of
the courts and the duty of the citizens to respect them are necessary adjuncts
to the administration of justice.Denigrating the court by libelous attacks on judicial conduct during the
pendency of a case before it may seriously interfere with the administration of
justice and may impair, if not destroy, the judicial efficiency of the court or
judge subjected to the attack.
Anent the petition to cite
respondent Endriga in contempt of court, we must deny the same.The article "A Plea for Justice"
does not case doubt on the integrity and honesty of this Court.Unlike the article of respondent David, it
does not insinuate or suggest that the Court is susceptible to influence by
powerful businessmen.There is nothing
therein that maliciously attacks the proceedings of the Court or subjects the
Court to unsavory opinions of the general public.It merely states the history of the case as well as the arguments
of CCP.In Danguilan-Vitug v. Court of Appeals, 9 232 SCRA
460 [1994].another case involving respondent David, we held:
"With respect
to the motion for contempt filed by Margarita Cojuangco against Rina
Jimenez-David, we believe that the article written by the latter is not such as
to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.The allegedly contemptuous article merely
restates the history of the case and reiterates the arguments which Rina
Jimenez-David, together with some other journalists have raised before this
Court in their Brief for Petitioner Vitug." (Underlining added)
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 power to impose
silence, respect and decorum in their presence and submission to their lawful
mandates, and as corollary to this proposition, to perserve themselves and
their officers from the approach of insults and pollution. 10
A.M. No. 90-4-1545-0 (Column of Mr.
Ramon Tulfo, etc.), supra.Thus,
the publication of criticisms tending to influence or obstruct the administration
of justice subject those concerned to contempt proceedings.
In fine, we remind
respondent David that while it is true that the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of the press must be protected to its fullest extent, it is equally
true that the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary must be fully
safeguarded.The administration of
justice and the freedom of the press are equally sacred and neither should be
violated by the other.Indeed, the
freedom of the press does not tolerate any publication intended to influence or
pressure the members of the bench in order to sway their judgments in pending
cases.
WHEREFORE, respondent Regina Jimenez-David is declared guilty of indirect
contempt of this Court and is REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of
similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.The petition to cite respondent Baltazar Endriga in contempt of
court is DENIED.
Justices Panganiban, Buena
and Gonzaga-Reyes took no part.
Very
truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court
