G.R. No. L-74997 June 28, 1988
ATTY. FRANCISCO ANTE, petitioner, vs. HON. HERMINIA M. PASCUA, Presiding Judge of Branch XXV, Regional Trial Court, 1st Judicial Region stationed at Vigan, Ilocos Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Francisco Ante, as counsel for plaintiff Allarde, secured a final and executory judgment in a damages case (Civil Case No. 3540-V) in Vigan against defendant Ruaro. When Ruaro later filed a similar case in Laoag City, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata, Ante filed a new complaint in Vigan (Civil Case No. 3665-V) seeking damages for his client, including attorney’s fees, allegedly suffered due to the Laoag suit. Defendant was again declared in default. Ante then filed a supplemental pleading dramatically increasing his claim for attorney’s fees to P60,000.00. The respondent judge, Hon. Herminia M. Pascua, awarded a significantly lower amount, which she recalled as not exceeding P1,500.00.
Ante filed a motion for reconsideration accusing the court of bias. Upon filing this motion, he reportedly told two court employees he would file an administrative charge against the judge if his motion were denied. He later formalized this threat in a court manifestation, stating he would file charges with the Supreme Court and the Minister of Justice and asking the court to “hold its temper.” Citing these acts, Judge Pascua found Atty. Ante guilty of direct contempt and imposed a fine of P200.00 or subsidiary imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner Atty. Francisco Ante guilty of direct contempt of court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified that while statements made to court employees outside formal proceedings generally do not constitute direct contempt, the judge’s order was primarily based on contemptuous statements within the pleadings Ante filed. His motion for reconsideration accused the court of “biasness,” and his subsequent manifestation contained a veiled threat to file administrative charges, implying the judge would act vindictively. These statements, made in submissions directly to the court, constitute direct contempt as they are disrespectful, tend to impede the administration of justice, and undermine judicial authority. The petitioner did not deny making these statements. The fine of P200.00 was a reasonable exercise of the court’s contempt power to preserve its dignity and orderly proceedings. Thus, the respondent judge acted within her sound discretion.