GR 173290; (November, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173290; November 20, 2006
ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE of Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Br. 83, MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, LT. COL. JALANDONI COTA, MAYOR AMER ODEN BALINDONG & ALI BALINDONG, Respondents.
FACTS
This petition for indirect contempt arose from the respondents’ defiance of the Supreme Court’s final Decision in G.R. No. 159962 (Balindong v. Limbona). In that prior case, the Court affirmed the reinstatement of specific criminal Informations (for Murder, Frustrated Murder, and Attempted Murder) against the private respondents and ordered the implementation of warrants for their arrest. The Court denied their motion for reconsideration with finality on June 6, 2005, explicitly stating “NO FURTHER PLEADINGS WILL BE ENTERTAINED.”
Despite this finality, the private respondents filed an “Urgent Motion for Clarification,” which the Supreme Court expunged from the records in a Resolution dated August 15, 2005. Subsequently, they filed a “Motion to Quash/Dismiss and/or Suspend Proceedings” before public respondent Judge Ralph S. Lee of the RTC, Quezon City, Branch 83. Judge Lee then issued an Order dated October 17, 2005, which effectively suspended the proceedings and the implementation of the arrest warrants, pending resolution of the motion to quash.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are guilty of indirect contempt for willfully disobeying and resisting lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, both the private respondents and Judge Lee are guilty of indirect contempt. The legal logic is grounded on the doctrine of finality of judgments and the imperative of respecting the Supreme Court’s lawful orders. The Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 159962 had become final and executory upon the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The filing of the “Urgent Motion for Clarification” after a final denial was a dilatory tactic constituting defiance. More egregiously, the subsequent filing of a Motion to Quash before the RTC and Judge Lee’s act of suspending the proceedings based on that motion constituted a clear obstruction to the execution of the Supreme Court’s direct order to implement the warrants of arrest.
The Court held that such acts amounted to contumacious disrespect for its authority. Judge Lee, in particular, had a ministerial duty to obey the Supreme Court’s directive. By entertaining a motion that sought to countermand a final Supreme Court order and issuing a suspension, he participated in frustrating the execution of a final judgment. The power to punish contempt is exercised on the preservative principle to uphold judicial authority and ensure the administration of justice. The respondents’ collective actions demonstrated a willful refusal to obey, warranting a finding of indirect contempt. Each respondent was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).