GR L 52498; (July, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982
JESUS B. PACQUING, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Davao Light and Power Company, Inc. filed a petition to cite Carmen B. Pacquing, the petitioner’s representative, and her lawyer, Atty. Samuel Occeña, for contempt of court. The petition alleged that since 1972, Pacquing had engaged the power company in multiple litigations across various courts—inferior courts, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court—revolving around the same basic issue of unpaid electric accounts as of April 1972. Despite final adverse decisions, the accounts remained unpaid. Specific incidents highlighted a pattern of relitigation and deceptive tactics, such as filing a complaint for injunction and obtaining a restraining order without disclosing a final Court of Appeals decision and a prior Supreme Court resolution, and subsequently filing a new suit for reconnection in a different court branch after disconnection was effected.
ISSUE
Whether Carmen B. Pacquing and Atty. Samuel Occeña are guilty of contempt of court for their conduct in repeatedly litigating the same issue and employing dilatory tactics after the matter had been resolved with finality.
RULING
The Supreme Court found both Carmen B. Pacquing and Atty. Samuel Occeña guilty of contempt. The legal logic centers on the abuse of court processes and the duty of lawyers to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The Court emphasized that the act of filing several cases on the same issue against the same party, after appellate courts had rendered final adverse decisions, constitutes a contumacious defiance of judicial authority. This conduct impedes the speedy administration of justice and makes a mockery of the judicial system.
The Court rejected the defenses raised, noting that the issue of relitigation was a matter of judicial record and not a premature resolution of pending civil cases. It highlighted that a lawyer, as an officer of the court, has a duty to advise clients against frivolous or repetitive litigation, especially on matters already adjudicated with finality. Atty. Occeña’s assistance in these tactics violated the ethics of the legal profession. The Court also took judicial notice of a prior contempt finding against Pacquing in a related case. Consequently, each respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) or suffer imprisonment for twenty days if unpaid, with a copy of the resolution entered into Atty. Occeña’s personal record.