G.R. No. RTJ-06-2009 ; July 27, 2006
JOSE B. TIONGCO, complainant, vs. JUDGE EVELYN E. SALAO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, ILOILO CITY, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant, Atty. Jose B. Tiongco, counsel for the accused in several criminal cases, was cited for direct contempt by respondent Judge Evelyn E. Salao during a hearing on March 17, 2003. The judge’s order stated he was found guilty of misbehaving, interrupting proceedings, and displaying disrespect by uttering offensive personalities. He was sentenced to ten days imprisonment, with an order for police to place him in prison immediately. Tiongco alleged he was prevented from arguing his motions and, despite his protests and attempts to post bond or appeal, the judge left the courtroom, leading to his immediate incarceration for the full term.
Respondent Judge, in her Comment, denied preventing Tiongco from arguing, asserting he had spoken for several minutes. She claimed she suggested submitting the motions for resolution due to a full calendar, but Tiongco refused to stop, shouted defiantly, and uttered derogatory remarks, prompting the contempt order. She denied ordering his late-night release but admitted suggesting liberality if released near the end of his sentence.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the judge’s order for immediate execution of the direct contempt penalty constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Salao guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. The legal logic centers on the procedural requirements for contempt orders under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. While the Court could not definitively rule on whether Tiongco’s conduct constituted direct contempt due to the unavailability of a transcript, it emphasized that a direct contempt order is not immediately executory. Rule 71, Section 2 provides that a person adjudged in direct contempt may not appeal therefrom, but the execution of the penalty may be suspended by the court if it finds that the contempt order is not sustainable. This provision implies that the contemnor must be afforded an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration or to post a bond to stay execution, ensuring the penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or vindictively.
By ordering immediate imprisonment without allowing Tiongco any opportunity to seek reconsideration or post bond, Judge Salao displayed a fundamental disregard for this clear procedural rule. The power to punish for contempt must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, with the preservative purpose of maintaining court dignity, not for retaliation. Her actions violated the norm of public accountability and diminished faith in the judiciary. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning. Atty. Tiongco was also reminded of his duty to observe proper decorum.