D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before this
Court is a Sinumpaang Salaysay[1] dated April 22, 2005 filed by complainant Valeriano F. Nuez
with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Judge
Francisco B. Ibay of Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, charging the latter with grave
abuse of authority.
Complainant
alleged the following in his complaint:
Complainant
was a driver at the Engineering Department of the Makati City Hall. On April 1, 2005, at around five oclock in the afternoon, he parked the
government vehicle which he was driving, an L-300 van with plate number
SFN-767, at the basement of the Makati City Hall and left the key in their office
because drivers were not allowed to bring such vehicles home. After the flag
ceremony on April 4, 2005,
complainant went to the Office of the Engineering Department where he received
an Order[2] from respondent Judge, directing the
former to appear before the latter on that same day at ten oclock in the morning and to explain why he
occupied the parking space allotted for respondent Judge.
When
complainant appeared before respondent Judge, the latter asked him if he had a
lawyer. Although complainant replied in the negative, respondent Judge still
further questioned the complainant. Complainant apologized and explained that
he did not intend to park in respondent Judges space, and that he did not know
that such space was reserved for respondent Judge.
However,
respondent Judge refused to accept complainants apology and, instead, found the
latter guilty of direct contempt of court for using the formers parking space,
sentencing complainant to five (5) days imprisonment and a fine of one thousand
pesos (P1,000.00).[3] Respondent then ordered the jail guard
to bring complainant to the City Jail in FortBonifacio,
where the latter was incarcerated for two days. On April 5, 2005, complainant was
released after filing a Motion for Reconsideration[4] and paying the fine of P1,000.00.
In his
Comment[5] dated June 27, 2005, respondent Judge
alleged that judges were assigned
their respective parking spaces in the basement of the City Hall of Makati City.
Respondent Judge, in particular, placed a marker with his name at the space
allotted to him, facilitating the orderly parking which allowed him to work as
early as seven oclock in the morning, almost daily. He
stated that he already programmed his activities to maintain and/or improve his
present position as the third ranking judge for the year 2004 among the RTC
judges of Makati City.
Respondent
Judge claimed that on the date and time in question, he was set to dispose a
criminal case, and over the weekend, had even conceptualized the matter on how
to administer the proceedings to accomplish the requirements of that criminal
case. However, the inconsiderate and improper parking of complainant disturbed
his train of thought as to the intended disposition of his cases.
In addition,
respondent Judge recounted that there were similar incidents which happened to
him. Sometime in August 2002, Allan Macrohon, Rodrigo Gonzales, and Redeem
Ongtinco caused an overflow of water into the chambers of respondent Judge,
damaging his computer system at the old RTC. On March 18, 2005, Venancio P. Inonog,
security-driver of the Chief of the Business Permit Section of Makati City,
also parked his vehicle at respondents parking slot. On April 12, 2005, John Panaligan, electrician
of the MakatiCity Hall,
erroneously switched off the electrical outlets of respondent Judges sala.
Respondent
Judge cited Macrohon, Gonzales, Ongtinco, Inonog, and Panaligan in contempt on
the ground that they disrupted respondent Judges performance of official
duties. In turn, Macrohon et
al., Inonog, and Panaligan all filed their respective administrative
complaints[6] against respondent Judge.
On November 25, 2005, the OCA recommended
that the instant complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative matter,
and that respondent Judge be fined ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) for
grave abuse of authority.[7]
In its
Resolution[8] dated March 15, 2006, the Court referred the
administrative case to Associate Justice Renato Dacudao of the Court of Appeals
for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from
receipt of the records. On June
22, 2006, the Investigating Justice issued an Order setting the said case for hearing.
The
Investigating Justice submitted a Partial Report on September 6, 2006 in which he stated that he had just
finished receiving the evidence for the parties and required them to submit
their respective memorandum. He also asked for an extension of two months from September 20, 2006, or until November 20, 2006, within which to
submit his Final Investigation, Report and Recommendation.
In his
Investigation, Report and Recommendation dated September 22, 2006, the Investigating
Justice concluded:
Based on the
testimonies of both parties and their witnesses, the undersigned Investigating
Justice believes that the complainant was not the person who parked the van on
respondent judges parking slot, but rather that it was Oscar de los Reyes.
Complainant during the hearing maintained that he parked the L-300 van in the
middle, and not on the side, which was the parking slot assigned to respondent
judge. Although the witness, Oscar de los Reyes testified that, after buying
merienda (on April 2, 2005), he
parked the van at the same place, he failed to explain where exactly he parked
the van. Thus, we cannot discount the possibility that De los Reyes might have
parked the van at the same place, meaning the basement parking, but not
necessarily on the very same spot or slot.
But whether
it was complainant or it was Oscar de los Reyes who parked the van, it would
not change or alter the fact that respondent judge committed grave abuse of
authority in holding the complainant in contempt of court for parking on his
slot. Respondent judge himself declared that had he known that it was De los
Reyes who parked the van he would not have asked complainant to explain, but
instead De los Reyes. x x x In addition, why still subject complainant to
further humiliation by having him handcuffed, like a common criminal, after
citing him for contempt of court? Obviously, respondent judge was really bent
on citing for contempt of court the person responsible for doing the parking in
the parking slot which he believed, (perhaps erroneously), was his assigned
parking slot. Obviously, too, there is a streak of cruel sadism, of pettiness
or meanness, in respondent judges character, as it would seem that he could not
refrain from exhibiting such excesses as causing the manacling (apparently in
open court at that), of an unintentional offender like the complainant herein,
who had the misfortune to injure, if innocuously, his wounded pride and ego as
a judge.
x x x x
In this
case, the undersigned Investigating Justice finds no reason why complainants
act of parking on the parking slot of respondent judge would constitute
contempt of court. It may have caused respondent judge some delay in
immediately parking his car that morning of April
4, 2005, but to say that the one-hour disruption delayed the administration of
justice would be stretching the logic of the situation too much. According to
respondent judge, time is of the essence in his decision-making program. But the
irony of it is that the amount of time respondent judge allotted in hearing the
explanation as well as the motion for reconsideration of complainant in this
case must have cost him more than the one hour he claimed he lost.
As
justification for his actions, respondent judge said that because of the prior
or previous incidents he was convinced that the particular incident was
intentional and deliberate. Such reasoning is unacceptable. There was no
showing that complainant or Oscar de los Reyes intentionally or deliberately
parked the van on respondent judges slot in order to purposely annoy or irk
him. And, even if it did annoy or irk respondent judge, he should remember
that, the power to cite persons in contempt is at his disposal for purposes
that are strictly impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not
for the judges as persons, but for the official functions that they exercise or
perform.
Besides, it
was unfair for respondent judge to assume that complainant knew of the prior or
previous incident, where respondent judge cited a driver for contempt of court
for parking on his parking slot, just because both drivers are employees of the Makati City Hall; this is clearly a non-sequitur. And, assuming
that complainant knew of the said incident, this alone would not prove that
what he did was intentional or deliberate.
Neither
would respondent judges allegation, that someone, an unknown person inside, is
orchestrating the filing of these cases against him for the chief or sole
purpose of harassing him, exonerate him of the charge. To begin with, he failed
to present any proof to substantiate this allegation. All he could point to are
mere coincidences or speculations. What is more, respondent judge seemed to
have taken some kind of pleasurable satisfaction in citing these complainants
in contempt of court simply for parking on the slot which he assumed was
allot(t)ed to him; or for
switching the lights off in his office; or for accidentally drenching his
computers. He, in fact, even admitted having issued all these Orders to punish
the complainants in these cases for disrupting or disturbing him in performing
his duties; hence, he cannot blame these persons for filing a case or cases
against him, as these persons must have felt aggrieved by his actuations in
precipitately citing them for contempt. Nor can he accuse an unknown person of
orchestrating all of these. All the cases or incidents he mentioned only
strengthened the undersigned Investigating Justices perception that respondent
judge has an unseemly propensity for abusing the power granted to him by law.
Respondent
judge ought to be reminded that as a member of the bench, he is expected to
take recourse to the contempt power only as a last resort, when all other
alternative courses of action are exhausted in the pursuit of maintaining
respect for the court and its processes; and that when a less harsh remedy can
be availed of by the judge, he should at all times hesitate to use his contempt
power, and instead opt for the less harsh remedy.
Thus, if
respondent judge wanted to teach complainant a lesson, he could have done so by
merely reprimanding or admonishing him considering that when complainant
appeared before respondent judge he immediately begged for forgiveness.
Respondent judges
act of citing complainant in contempt of court for parking on his slot is a
violation of Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that A
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
x x x x
For the
reasons heretofore stated, the undersigned Investigating Justice finds
respondent judge guilty of grave abuse of authority for using contempt as a
retaliatory measure aggravated in this case by a streak of cruel sadism, of
pettiness or meanness, in respondents character, as elsewhere indicated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Notwithstanding
the finding of guilt of the respondent judge, the undersigned Investigating
Justice deems that certain circumstances must be considered in imposing the
proper penalty.
It must be
noted that respondent judge has a very good performance record. His strong
adherence to the Supreme Courts reminder that, members of the judicial branch
judges and judicial personnel alike to be conscientious, diligent and thorough
in the performance of their functions. At all time(s) they must observe the
high standard of public service required of them. is quite admirable and
commendable. Also, he already admitted his error in declaring complainant in
contempt of court. All these may be taken as mitigating circumstances which
could alleviate his culpability.
UPON THE
VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the undersigned Investigating
Justice hereby recommends that the respondent Judge be fined in the amount of PESOS: FIVE THOUSAND (Php5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
In a
Resolution dated February 7,
2007, the Court referred the administrative matter to the OCA for evaluation,
report and recommendation, within thirty (30) days from notice, on the
propriety of consolidating the instant case with the other administrative cases
filed against respondent Judge.
In its Memorandum dated March 30, 2007, the OCA observed that:
After a
cautious evaluation of the entire records of the instant case, this Office
agrees with the Investigating Justices findings that respondent committed grave
abuse of authority in citing complainant in contempt of court. Respondent
wrongly argues that complainant delayed the administration of justice when he
improperly parked the van on respondents assigned slot which disrupted his
scheduled disposition of cases. Respondents reaction to the complainants
mistake is exaggerated. The complainants act may have caused inconvenience to
the respondent but it could not delay the administration of justice.
There is no
evidence to show that complainant Nuez parked the van at respondents slot
purposely to annoy him or he was aware of the previous similar incident which
involved Venancio Inonog. In fact, complainant explained that his mistake was
not deliberate and he asked for respondents forgiveness. Respondent likewise
failed to substantiate his allegation that someone is orchestrating the filing
of administrative cases against him for the sole purpose of harassing him. The
other complainants cannot be faulted for filing the said cases as they may have
felt aggrieved by respondents actuations in citing them for contempt for flimsy
and personal reasons.
x x x x
Respondents
order dated April 4, 2005 citing complainant Nuez in contempt of
court betrays not only his ignorance as regards the Rule on Contempt of Court,
but it also shows his despotic nature. The fact that respondent had also
declared Inonog, Panaligan, Macrohon and two others in contempt of court shows
that he does not possess the judicial temperament which a judge should possess.
x x x
The power to
punish for contempt must be used sparingly with due regard to the provisions of
the law and the constitutional rights of the individual. It should be exercised
strictly for the preservation of the dignity of the court and its proceedings.
In the instant complaint, respondent exercised the said power in an arbitrary
and oppressive manner and for purposes that are purely personal.
The exacting
standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge
himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he
places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs
public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.
After a
cautious evaluation of the entire records of the instant case, this Office
finds the recommended penalty not commensurate to respondents offense. This is
not respondents first offense. He had been administratively sanctioned for
grave abuse of authority and was ordered by the Court to pay a fine on June 21, 2006 in the case of Panaligan v. Ibay
docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-06-1972. In the case filed by Allan Macrohon, et al.,
docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-06-1970, respondent was ordered by the Court to pay a
fine of P25,000.00 for gravely abusing his authority and was also warned that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent has another pending case filed by Venancio Inonog for the same
charge. In the said case of Allan Macrohon, et al. against respondent, the
Court stated that the similarity of the charges in these administrative
complaints against him betrays a deplorable proclivity for the use of contempt
powers at the slightest provocation.
Taking into
consideration that the instant complaint is a third transgression of a similar
offense, this Office recommends that respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay be
SUSPENDED for FOUR (4) MONTHS with STERN WARNING that a repetition of similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.
In its
Resolution dated July 25, 2007,
the Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit
the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and
submitted within 30 days from notice.
In its
Resolution dated November 21,
2007, the Court deemed as served upon the complainant the copy of the
Resolution dated July 25, 2007 which was sent to complainant, but was
returned unserved with postmans notation RTS-Unknown.
In its
Resolution dated March 3, 2008,
after failure of respondent Judge to manifest whether he was willing to submit
the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and
submitted as required in the Resolution dated July
25, 2007, the Court deemed the case for decision.
The issue
which lies before this Court is whether respondent Judge can be held
administratively liable for grave abuse of authority in citing complainant for
contempt of court.
The power to
hold a person in direct contempt is provided for under Section 1, Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court, which reads:
SECTION 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. A person guilty of misbehavior in
the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings
before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities
toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be
summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or
both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank,
or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one
(1) day or both, if it be a lower court.
In Sison v. Caoibes, Jr.,[9] the Court held that the power to
declare a person in contempt of court, however plenary as it may seem, must be
exercised judiciously and sparingly. A judge should never allow himself to be
moved by pride, prejudice, passion or pettiness in the performance of his
duties.
Respondent
Judge averred that someone was out to harass and embarrass him, which was why
six different complaints were simultaneously filed against him, prompting him
to cite the complainants for contempt of court. He explained that the
individual acts of the complainants were contemptuous, including herein
complainants improper parking, because they disrupted the speedy administration
of justice.
The Court
disagrees. Aside from the fact that respondent Judge failed to substantiate his
allegation, the Court does not see how the improper parking by complainant, or
by a certain Oscar dela Cruz, could, even in the remotest manner, disrupt the
speedy administration of justice. At
most, it would cause respondent Judge inconvenience or annoyance, but still,
this does not fall under any of the aforementioned acts for which a person
could be cited for contempt. Neither does it appear from the records, nor from
the evidence presented, that complainant intended any disrespect toward
respondent Judge. In fact, upon being summoned, complainant immediately
apologized for his mistake.
In Oclarit v. Paderanga,[10] the Court held that the power to
punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindicative,
principle and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. 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.
By the time
the instant complaint was filed, respondent Judge had already cited six persons
for contempt, including herein complainant. Worse, respondent Judge immediately
detained complainant, thereby preventing him from resorting to the remedies
provided under Section 2, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, cited as follows:
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.
Such abusive
behavior on the part of respondent Judge fails to show his integrity, which is
essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to
his personal demeanor.[11] In addition, Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary[12] state that:
SECTION 1.
Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it
is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SEC. 2. The
behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity
of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be
done.
The Court
believes that the frequency of his offenses already constitutes gross
misconduct. Gross has been defined as flagrant and shameful, while misconduct
means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful
in character, improper or wrong behavior.[13] Under Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court, gross misconduct is classified as a serious offense punishable
under the sanctions enumerated under the same Rule, Section 11 of which
provides that:
SEC. 11.
Sanctions. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture
of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from office with salary
and other benefits for more than three (3), but not
exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00, but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In previous
cases wherein judges cited persons for contempt without legal basis, the Court
has found respondents guilty of grave abuse of authority and usually imposed a
penalty of reprimand with a warning, or a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning.[14]
However,
respondent Judge has been twice administratively sanctioned by the Court for
the same offense. In Panaligan
v. Ibay,[15] respondent Judge was found to have
abused his authority in citing a person for contempt without sufficient legal
basis, for which he was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.00, with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with
more severely. In Macrohon v.
Ibay,[16] he was again found liable for the same
offense and sentenced to pay a fine of P25,000.00,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be
dealt with more severely.
In view of
respondent Judges penchant for citing persons for contempt even without legal
basis, the Investigating Justice recommended that he be ordered to pay a fine
of P5,000.00 with a stern
warning, while the OCA recommended that he be suspended for four (4) months
with a stern warning. Considering that respondent Judge had opted to avail
himself of the Optional Retirement under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 910, as
amended by R.A. No. 5095 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1438, effective at
the close of office hours of August 18, 2007, which was approved by the Court
(First Division) per Resolution dated November 14, 2007,[17] provided that the amount of Four
Hundred Thousand (P400,000.00) Pesos shall be retained/withheld from his
retirement benefits to answer for whatever adverse decision the Court may later
impose upon him in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984 (herein case) and OCA IPI No.
05-2248-RTJ, the Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to impose a fine of P40,000.00, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be
dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Francisco B. Ibay is found GUILTY of grave abuse of authority for citing
complainant Valeriano F. Nuez for contempt without legal basis, and is ORDERED to PAY a FINE of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00),
to be deducted from his retirement benefits, which in this case shall be
deductible from the Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00) withheld
from his retirement benefits, per Resolution dated November 14, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
CASE
DIGEST
FACTS
The
administrative case stemmed from the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Valeriano F.
Nuñez, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge
Francisco B. Ibay of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, Makati City
with gross abuse of authority. The complaint involved an incident in the Makati
City Hall basement parking lot for which respondent judge cited complainant in
contempt of court because complainant parked a government vehicle which he was
driving at the parking space reserved for respondent judge.
Complainant
apologized and explained that he did not intend to park in respondent Judge's
space, and that he did not know that such space was reserved for respondent
Judge. However, respondent Judge refused to accept complainant's apology and,
instead, found the latter guilty of direct contempt of court for using the
former's parking space, sentencing complainant to five (5) days imprisonment
and a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00).[3]
Respondent then ordered the jail guard to bring complainant to the City Jail in
Fort Bonifacio, where the latter was incarcerated for two days. On April 5,
2005, complainant was released after filing a Motion for Reconsideration[4] and paying the fine of P1,000.00.
In his Comment, Respondent Judge claimed that on the date and time of incident, he was set to dispose a criminal case, and over the weekend, had even conceptualized the matter on how to administer the proceedings to accomplish the requirements of that criminal case. However, the inconsiderate and improper parking of complainant disturbed his train of thought as to the intended disposition of his cases.
ISSUE:
In his Comment, Respondent Judge claimed that on the date and time of incident, he was set to dispose a criminal case, and over the weekend, had even conceptualized the matter on how to administer the proceedings to accomplish the requirements of that criminal case. However, the inconsiderate and improper parking of complainant disturbed his train of thought as to the intended disposition of his cases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not
respondent judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority.
RULING:
YES.
The Supreme Court held that the exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.
By the time the instant complaint was filed, respondent Judge had already cited six persons for contempt, including herein complainant. Worse, respondent Judge immediately detained complainant, thereby preventing him from resorting to the remedies provided under the law. Such abusive behavior on the part of respondent Judge fails to show his integrity, which is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to his personal demeanor.
In addition, Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary state that:
SECTION
1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that
it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
The
Court believes that the frequency of his offenses already constitutes gross
misconduct. "Gross" has been defined as flagrant and shameful, while
"misconduct" means a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.
Respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay was found GUILTY of grave abuse of authority for citing complainant Valeriano F. Nuñez for contempt without legal basis, and was ORDERED to PAY a FINE of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).
