FIRST DIVISION
|
JOSE B. TIONGCO, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE EVELYN E. SALAO, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 25, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1760-RTJ) Present: PANGANIBAN,
C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO, SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
R E S O L U T I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Complainant Jose B. Tiongco charges respondent Judge Evelyn E. Salao, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Iloilo
City, with gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, grave abuse of
judicial power amounting to vindictiveness and unlawful imprisonment, arising
from the respondent Judge’s Order dated 17 March 2003, citing him in direct
contempt, sentencing him to ten (10) days imprisonment, and ordering the police
to place him in prison immediately.
Complainant
is a lawyer engaged in the practice of law. He is the counsel for the accused in Criminal
Cases No. 02-56371, No. 02-56587, No. 02-55344, and No. 01-53440. On
Complainant
alleged that after the prosecutor had argued against the motions, he stood up
to argue in support of the same, but he was prevented because the respondent
Judge declared the motions submitted for resolution. When he vehemently objected to the respondent
Judge’s order and protested his being prevented from speaking, the respondent
Judge cited him for direct contempt, thus:
ORDER
Atty. Jose Tiongco having been found guilty of misbehaving during the hearing thus interrupting and disrespecting the proceedings of this Court and displaying disrespect to the court by uttering offensive personalities (sic) towards the Court, he is hereby declared in direct contempt of court and is hereby sentenced to ten (10) days imprisonment.
The police officers are ordered to place Atty. Tiongco in prison immediately.
SO
OR
(SGD)
EV
EVELYN E. SALAO
Judge[1]
He
further stated that while he was frantically manifesting his readiness to post
a bond and to appeal the order by certiorari
to stay its execution, the respondent Judge suddenly left the courtroom,
entered her chambers and locked herself up.
Thus, the policemen present had no choice but to immediately execute the
order by placing him in jail where he stayed for 10 days. And while his 10-day sentence was to expire
on
Aggrieved
by the order of contempt and his immediate
imprisonment, complainant initiated the instant complaint.
In her Comment,[2] respondent Judge denied she prevented the
complainant from expressing his arguments in support of his motions. She averred that complainant had been talking
in support of his motions for at least five minutes before she suggested to submit
his motions for resolution. Complainant
refused to stop talking and continued arguing for a couple of minutes. Again, the respondent Judge suggested to have
the motions submitted for resolution as there were at least 10 other cases in
the calendar still to be called. The
complainant shouted “No” and continued talking.
The respondent Judge again ordered him to stop talking as the court will
just issue its resolution, but this time the complainant shouted even louder in
a defiant manner uttering derogatory remarks.
That was the time respondent Judge declared him in contempt, but the
latter continued shouting at the top of his voice threatening to file an
administrative case against the former.
For his contemptuous gross disrespect to the court and affront to the
person of the respondent Judge, he was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment for
direct contempt of court.
The
respondent Judge denied she directed the jail warden to release the complainant
from prison at
As
to the search warrant which the complainant was seeking to quash in his motion
set for hearing on
On
1.
The instant case be REDOCKETED as
a regular administrative case;
2.
The respondent Judge Evelyn E. Salao,
RTC, Branch 25, Iloilo City be FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
and WARNED that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be more
severely dealt with; and
3.
Atty. Jose B. Tiongco, be RE
The
issues to be resolved are: (1) whether
complainant is guilty of direct contempt of court; and (2) whether the Order
finding complainant guilty of direct contempt is immediately executory.
On
the issue of whether complainant’s actuations constitute direct contempt, we
are unable to determine whether the acts and words uttered by complainant are
contemptuous because of the unavailability of the transcript which would
contain the verbal exchanges between the complainant and respondent Judge and
the description of the behavior of the complainant during such exchanges.
While
it may be true that complainant committed direct contempt by his disrespectful behavior in arguing his
point in court, respondent Judge erred in directing the police officers to place the
complainant “in prison immediately.”
This brings to the fore the question
of whether an order of direct contempt is immediately executory.
Rule 71, Section 2, of the Rules of
Court provides that –
SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him. (Underscoring supplied.)
As
may be gleaned from the above-quoted provision, an order of direct contempt is
not immediately executory. Squarely applicable is the case of Oclarit v. Paderanga,[5] when
we ruled that –
[A]n order of direct
contempt is not immediately executory or
enforceable. The contemner
must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the
contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of
Procedure, as amended, the Court introduced a new provision granting a remedy
to a person adjudged in direct contempt by any court. Such person may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of certiorari or prohibition. In
such case, the execution of the judgment shall
be suspended pending resolution of such petition provided the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which rendered
the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment
should the petition be decided against him.[6]
(Underscoring supplied.)
Evidently,
respondent Judge erred in ordering the immediate imprisonment of the
complainant after declaring him in direct contempt of court. She should have given complainant the
opportunity to avail himself of the remedies provided by law. Complainant cannot be faulted for not availing
the remedies of posting of a bond and filing a certiorari case questioning respondent Judge’s order of contempt,
as he was immediately arrested by the policemen and placed in jail thereafter
despite complainant’s plea for time to question the order of contempt and
manifestation of willingness to post bail during the pendency
of the appeal. Due regard must also be
given to the fact that complainant is of advanced age. At 83, he cannot be expected to be as vigilant
in asserting his rights under the law, such that, when placed under such
circumstance, the respondent Judge should have given complainant sufficient
leeway to avail himself the fullest extent of the remedy afforded him by law.
Respondent
Judge, by locking herself in her chambers after issuing the order of contempt
and coming out only after being informed that complainant was transported to
the Iloilo City Jail, left the policemen without recourse but to immediately
arrest and detain the complainant in jail. By doing so, she gave an impression that her personal feelings were not kept
under control. She should have displayed
a greater sense of professional maturity to avoid acts of impropriety that
greatly embarrass the administration of justice. A display of petulance and impatience in the
conduct of trial is a norm of behavior incompatible with the needful attitude
and sobriety of a good judge.[7]
We cannot simply shrug off respondent Judge’s failure to exercise that degree of care and temperance required
of a judge in the correct and prompt administration of justice; more so in this
case where the exercise of the power of contempt resulted in complainant’s detention and deprivation of liberty. Respondent Judge’s conduct amounts to grave
abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent
Judge’s actions also visibly indicate her lack of sufficient grasp of the law. No less than the Code of Judicial Conduct
mandates that a Judge shall be faithful to the laws and maintain professional
competence.[8] Indeed,
competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of
familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence
of the courts. Such is gross ignorance
of the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, he owes the public
and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a
sign of incompetence. Basic rules must
be at the palm of his hands. A judge
must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural
rules.[9] Thus, this Court has consistently held that a
judge is presumed to know the law and when the law is so elementary, not to be
aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[10] Verily, failure to follow basic legal
commands embodied in the law and the rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law,
from which no one is excused, and surely not a judge.[11]
Regarding
the alleged order of the respondent Judge to the jail guard to release the
complainant from his detention at 11:30 in the evening of 26 March 2003, when
the 10-day sentence was to expire at 9:30 a.m. of 27 March 2003 yet, we find
nothing wrong in respondent Judge’s explanation that she only expressed her
lack of objection to the jail guard’s query if he could release the complainant
from prison at that time of the night of 26 March 2003.
The
charge that respondent Judge issued Search Warrant No. 26-2001 without
observing the legal imperative of subjecting the applicant and his witnesses to
searching examination in writing and under oath is not established. Respondent Judge vehemently asserted that she
did conduct the examination, that the examination was duly transcribed and even
tape recorded. In administrative
proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence
the allegations in the complaint.[12] The complainant, who has the burden to prove
his charge, failed to contradict the respondent Judge’s assertion.
Thus,
the carelessness and lack of circumspection on respondent Judge’s part, to say
the least, in peremptorily ordering the arrest and detention of complainant,
warrant the imposition of a penalty on respondent Judge as a corrective
measure, so that she and others may be properly warned about carelessness in
the application of the proper law and undue severity in ordering the detention
of complainant immediately and depriving him of the opportunity to seek
recourse from higher courts against the summary penalty of imprisonment imposed
by respondent Judge.
It
is also well-settled that the power to
declare a person in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order
in judicial proceedings and to uphold the administration of justice. Judges, however, are enjoined to exercise
such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end
view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of
the court, and not for retaliation or vindication.[13] The salutary rule is that the power to punish
for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle,
and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts must exercise the power to punish
for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended
as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they
exercise.[14] Only occasionally should the court invoke the
inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration
of justice must falter or fail.[15]
We
have repeatedly reminded members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in
conduct and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal
behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties, but also in their
daily life. For no position exacts a
greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a
seat in the judiciary.[16]
The imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the judiciary is to
maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. The Court condemns and would never
countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in
the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public
accountability or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary,[17]
like in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises
considered, we find Judge Evelyn E. Salao GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and
grave abuse of authority and a fine of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS
is hereby IMPOSED upon her, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. Atty. Jose B. Tiongco
is also REMINDED of his professional duty as a member of the bar to observe
proper decorum both in language and behavior in his dealings with the courts
and the Judges thereof.
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] G.R. No. 139519,
[6]
[7] Torres v. Judge Villanueva, 387 Phil. 516, 524 (2000).
[8] Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[9]
[10] Agunday v. Judge Tresvalles, 377 Phil. 141, 154-155 (1999).
[11] De
[12] Araos v. Judge Luna-Pison, 428 Phil. 290, 295 (2002).
[13] Esmeralda-Baroy v. Peralta, 350 Phil. 431, 447-448 (1998).
[14] Oclarit v. Paderanga, supra note 5 at 265.
[15] Panado v. Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 593, 603 (1998).
[16] Sy v. Judge Fineza, 459 Phil. 780, 793 (2003).
[17] Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488,