AM 93 759; (September, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-93-759. September 5, 1997. EMILIANO VELUZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAUL V. BABARAN, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Emiliano Veluz was a defendant in a forcible entry case before respondent Judge Raul V. Babaran’s court. To resolve a jurisdictional issue, the judge scheduled an ocular inspection of the disputed land. On the inspection date, November 21, 1992, Veluz, armed with a bolo, approached the judge and the opposing counsel in a threatening manner, ignoring orders to stop and drop his weapon. The judge and others fled for safety as Veluz hurled threats, causing the inspection to be aborted.
Later that day, Judge Babaran issued an order citing Veluz for direct contempt of court for his disrespectful and disruptive conduct. A warrant was issued, and Veluz was arrested and jailed from November 23 until December 3, 1992. Veluz filed this administrative complaint, alleging grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law, arguing that the judge had no power to order indefinite incarceration for direct contempt and that the judge was partial for not citing the opposing counsel who allegedly also displayed a firearm.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Raul V. Babaran is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or abuse of authority in citing complainant for direct contempt and ordering his incarceration.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law as moot and academic due to the respondent’s prior resignation from the judiciary. On the merits, the Court found that the judge was justified in holding Veluz liable for direct contempt. Veluz’s act of approaching the judge with a bolo, causing the judge to flee and abort the court-ordered inspection, constituted misconduct under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, which defines direct contempt as a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct justice.
However, the Court held that the judge committed a legal error in ordering Veluz’s indefinite incarceration. The applicable rule explicitly limited punishment for direct contempt in an inferior court to imprisonment not exceeding one day or a fine not exceeding ten pesos, or both. The judge’s explanation that he acted in good faith to prevent further obstruction did not excuse this violation of a clear procedural rule. While the complaint was rendered moot by resignation, the Court noted the blunder as a failure to exercise the required care and conversance with basic legal principles, for which the judge would have been admonished. The disbarment complaint was dismissed for lack of merit, as the acts did not constitute valid grounds.