G.R. No. 128859; June 23, 2005
AIDA POBLETE and HON. REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 272, Marikina City, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and WILLIAM LU, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition concerning the grant of bail to petitioner Aida Poblete, who was charged with Estafa. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated June 29, 2004, dismissed the petition as moot and academic after learning on its own initiative that Poblete had been acquitted in the criminal case as early as 1999. The Court noted that neither the petitioner nor the private respondent had informed it of this supervening event, which would have warranted the immediate dismissal of the bail-related petition. Consequently, the Court required the respective counsels, Atty. Roberto T. Neri for petitioner and Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro for private respondent, to explain why they should not be held liable for indirect contempt for their failure to notify the Court of the acquittal.

ISSUE

Whether the counsels for the parties are liable for indirect contempt for failing to inform the Supreme Court of the accused’s acquittal, which rendered the pending petition moot.

RULING

Yes, but only Atty. Roberto T. Neri is held liable for indirect contempt. The legal logic centers on the duty of lawyers to assist in the speedy administration of justice and to avoid unduly delaying court proceedings, as mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Any improper conduct that impedes, obstructs, or degrades the administration of justice constitutes indirect contempt.
The Court differentiated the responsibilities of the two counsels. Atty. Balbastro, representing the private complainant, offered a satisfactory explanation. The petition primarily concerned the accused’s bail; its resolution did not directly affect the private respondent’s liberty or property, justifying a lesser degree of urgency on his part. The primary burden to inform the Court of developments rests with the party who instituted the action—the petitioner—who seeks affirmative relief.
In contrast, Atty. Neri’s explanation was deemed unsatisfactory. He claimed he forgot about the petition due to a heavy workload. The Court found this unpersuasive, as the acquittal occurred only two years after filing, and notably, Atty. Neri had filed a Notice of Change of Address with the Court just five days after the acquittal, demonstrating he was aware of the case and could have easily notified the Court. His prior disciplinary record for neglect in the same case further aggravated his position. His failure constituted conduct tending to impede justice by causing the Court to unnecessarily deliberate on a moot case. Atty. Neri was found guilty of indirect contempt and fined Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00).