COMILANG and SUEGA-LAGMAN, - v - JUDGE BELEN

EN BANC, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012

Facts:

State Prosecutor Comilang, by virtue of Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP) Order was designated to assist the Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba City in the prosecution of cases. He appeared before Judge Belen of the RTC of Calamba City manifesting his inability to appear on Thursdays because of his inquest duties in the Provincial Prosecutors Office of Laguna. He moved that all cases scheduled for hearing on February 24, 2005 before Judge Belen be deferred because he was set to appear for preliminary investigation in the Provincial Prosecutor's Office on the same day.

Instead of granting the motion, Judge Belen issued his order requiring him to (1) explain why he did not inform the court of his previously-scheduled preliminary investigation and (2) pay a fine of P500.00 for the cancellation of all the scheduled hearings. In response, State Prosecutor Comilang filed his Explanation with Motion for Reconsideration, followed by a Reiterative Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Early Resolution.  Judge Belen directed him to explain why he should not be cited for contempt and to pay the postponement. In his comment, State Prosecutor Comilang explained that the contents of his Reiterative Supplemental Motion were based on his personal belief made in good faith and with grain of truth. Nonetheless, Judge Belen rendered a Decision finding State Prosecutor Comilang liable for contempt of court and for payment of penalty. His motion for reconsideration having been denied, he filed a motion to post a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the said Decision, which Judge Belen granted.

State Prosecutor Comilang filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction assailing Judge Belens Order and Decision which was granted. Notwithstanding the TRO, Judge Belen issued an Order requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his refusal to file the supersedeas bond and to appear to explain why he should not be cited indirect contempt of court. In his Compliance, State Prosecutor Comilang cited the CAs injunctive writ. He also manifested that he was waiving his appearance on the scheduled hearing for the indirect contempt charge against him. Nevertheless, Judge Belen issued an Order directing State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his defiance of the subpoena and why he should not be cited for indirect contempt. Judge Belen likewise ordered the Branch Clerk of Court to issue a subpoena for him to appear regarding his failure to comply with previously-issued subpoenas for the hearing on the non-filing of his supersedeas bond. State Prosecutor Comilang movedto quash the subpoenas, and for the inhibition of Judge Belen. Judge Belen denied the motion to quash subpoenas, held State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of indirect contempt of court for his failure to obey a duly served subpoena, and sentenced him to pay a fine and to suffer two days' imprisonment. He was also required to post a supersedeas bond.

Aggrieved, State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before the OCA charging Judge Belen with manifest partiality and malice, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the show cause orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance to the injunctive writ issued by the CA. 

In its Report, the OCA found Judge Belen to have violated Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court by failing to separately docket or consolidate with the principal case the indirect contempt charge against State Prosecutor Comilang. It also found Judge Belen to have blatantly violated the injunctive writ of the CA when he issued the orders requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain why he failed to post a supersedeas bond which, given the antecedents of his administrative cases, showed manifest bias and partiality tantamount to bad faith and grave abuse of authority. Judge Belen was likewise found to have violated the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES. Rule 2.01 A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Canon 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. Rule 3.01 A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.OCA recommended, inter alia, that Judge Belen be adjudged guilty of manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law and accordingly, be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to reemployment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned and controlled corporations and government financial institutions.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Belen's actuations showed manifest partiality and bias, evident bad faith, grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge of Branch 36, Calamba City.

  

Ruling: The Court concurs with the findings and recommendations of the OCA, but only in part.

Indirect contempt proceedings may be initiated only in two ways: (1) motu proprio by the court through an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; or (2) by a verified petition and upon compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. In the second instance, the verified petition for contempt shall be docketed, heard and decided separately unless the court in its discretion orders the contempt charge, which arose out of or related to the principal action, to be consolidated with the main action for joint hearing and decision. In this case, the contempt charge was commenced not through a verified petition, but by Judge Belen motu proprio through the issuance of an order requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt. As such, the requirements of the rules that the verified petition for contempt be docketed, heard and decided separately or consolidated with the principal action find no application. Consequently, Judge Belen was justified in not directing the contempt charge against State Prosecutor Comilang to be docketed separately or consolidated with the principal action.

Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued by the CA enjoining the implementation of his Order and Decision. In requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his non-filing of a supersedeas bond, in issuing subpoenas to compel his attendance before court hearings relative to the contempt proceedings, and finally, in finding him guilty of indirect contempt for his non-compliance with the issued subpoenas, Judge Belen effectively defeated the status quo which the writ of preliminary injunction aimed to preserve. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no less. Moreover, refusal to honor an injunctive order of a higher court constitutes contempt.

Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have a mastery of the principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law. Hence, with the foregoing disquisitions and Judge Belens previous infractions, which are all of serious nature and for which he had been severely warned, the Court therefore adopts the recommendation of the OCA to mete the ultimate penalty of dismissal against Judge Belen for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.

Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.