CONTEMPT ORDERS AGAINST
LT. GEN. JOSE M. CALIMLIM AND
August 20, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This
is a petition for review[1] of the
11 December 1999 and 20 January 2000 Orders of Judge Adoracion
Cruz-Avisado (Judge Cruz-Avisado),
presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Davao
City (
The Facts
Leonardo
Pitao (Pitao),[2] one of
the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 16,342-88 pending before the
In
the Return of Service of Warrant of Arrest,[3] Atty.
Domingo A. Doctor, Jr. (Atty. Doctor, Jr.), Chief of the Legal Action Unit of
the ISAFP, prayed for the issuance of a Commitment Order authorizing Pitao’s continued detention at the ISAFP Detention Cell
during the pendency and trial of his case before the
RTC. The ISAFP,
through Atty. Doctor, Jr., promised to be responsible for producing and
bringing Pitao before the RTC on every scheduled
hearing of his case.
In
an Order[4] dated
On
In
their Compliance[7]
dated
In
the
WHEREFORE,
Lt. Gen. Jose Calimlim is hereby ADMONISHED to be
more responsible and circumspect in his duties and obligations to the
Court. Atty. Domingo A. Doctor is hereby
REPRIMANDED for not being candid and for taking lightly his commitment to the
Court. He must remember that he is not
only a military officer but he is likewise a member of the Integrated Bar of
the
Let copies of this
order be attached to the personnel records of both Lt.
Gen. Jose Calimlim and Atty. Domingo Doctor with the
Intelligence Service, Armed Forces of the
Let copies of this
order be furnished the Secretary of the Department of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Likewise, furnish the
Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.[10]
On
In
the
The Court finds that the duly signed verification attached to the Motion for Reconsideration and admission of inadvertence with offer of apology by the movants to the Court constitute sufficient compliance of the Order for Explanation issued by the Court last November 19, 1999.
As a continuing reminder to the two officers however, and in order for them to avoid in the future, any other inadvertent lapse regarding their responsibility to the court, the Court finds the need for the earlier order of ADMONITION and REPRIMAND to stay and form part of their personnel record.
WHEREFORE, the offered apology for the incident last November 19, 1999 is hereby duly noted and the apologies offered are accepted. The Motion for Reconsideration is partly GRANTED such that the Compliance by way of Explanation on their failure to bring the accused to Court last November 19, 1999 is now considered satisfactory. However all other aspects of the December 11, 1999 Order of this Court stands.
The prayer raised in open court by Solicitor San Juan to set aside the ADMONITION and REPRIMAND of Lt. Gen. Calimlim is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The December 11, 1999 Order and this Order should form part of the personnel record of the two (2) military officers herein.
Let [a] copy of this
Order be furnished all those served with the
SO ORDERED.[11]
The Issues
Petitioners
raise the following issues:
1. Whether petitioners could be burdened with a
penalty for indirect contempt other than that provided by the Rules of Court;
and
2. Whether the order of admonition and reprimand
against petitioners should stay despite a declaration that their explanation as
to why they should not be cited for contempt was satisfactory and accepted.
The Ruling of the Court
The
petition is partly meritorious.
Proper Procedure for Indirect
Contempt
In
contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be followed.[12] Sections 3[13] and 4,[14] Rule 71
of the Rules of Court provide the procedure to be followed in case of indirect
contempt. First, there must be an order
requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be cited for contempt. Second, the
respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against
him. Third, there must be a hearing and
the court must investigate the charge and consider respondent’s answer. Finally, only if found
guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.
In
this case, Judge Cruz-Avisado failed to observe the
proper procedure in the exercise of the power to punish for indirect
contempt. First, there can be no indirect contempt absent any
prior written charge.[15] In the
Second,
if the answer to the contempt charge is satisfactory, the contempt proceedings
end.[17] Even if we consider the
Lastly,
there must be a hearing conducted on the contempt charge. In this case, no hearing was ever
conducted. After receiving petitioners’
Compliance, Judge Cruz-Avisado immediately issued the
Proper Penalty for Indirect Contempt
Section
7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides the penalty for indirect
contempt. Section 7 of Rule 71 reads:
SEC. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. - If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. x x x
Indeed, the Rules do not provide that
reprimand and admonition may be imposed on one found guilty of indirect
contempt.
However,
in Racines v. Judge Morallos,[21] the
Court, after finding Jaime Racines (
In this case, if petitioners were found guilty of indirect
contempt, Judge Cruz-Avisado may penalize them with
reprimand. However, since the proper
procedure for indirect contempt was not followed, Judge Cruz-Avisado’s Orders to reprimand Atty. Doctor, Jr. had no
legal basis.
On
the other hand, admonition is not a penalty but merely a warning.[22] Judge Cruz-Avisado
may admonish Lt. Gen. Calimlim for the failure to
comply with the
Judges
are reminded that the power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly and
only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be
exercised.[23] The power to punish for contempt must also be
used with due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights
of the individual.[24]
WHEREFORE,
we GRANT in part the petition. We SET ASIDE the
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
RENATO C. CORONA ADOLFO S. AZC
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] Also known as “Commander Parago” and “Commander Farago,” Commanding Officer of the Main Regional Guerilla Unit 3 of the New People’s Army.
[3] Records, p. 108.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 51-52.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] Nazareno
v. Barnes, G.R. No. L-59072,
[13] Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
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: x x x
[14] Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. - Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
[15] Felizmeña v. Galano, 216 Phil. 158 (1984).
[16] The
[17] Paredes-Garcia
v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 120654,
[18] Gamboa
v. Teodoro, 91 Phil. 270 (1952).
[19] Santiago
v. Anunciacion, Jr., G.R. No. 89318, 3 April 1990, 184 S
[20] Soriano v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 128938,
[21] A.M. MTJ-08-1698,
[22] Tobias v. Veloso, 188 Phil. 267 (1980).
[23] Pacuribot v. Judge Lim, 341 Phil. 544 (1997).
[24] Paredes-Garcia v. Court of Appeals, supra note 17.