G.R. No. L-24139; August 31, 1967
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, petitioner, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, MERCEDES TOBIANO CO, JOSE TOBIANO and JUSTO TOBIANO, respondents.

FACTS

On September 27, 1962, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration ordered the exclusion of Mercedes Tobiano Co and her alleged children, including Jose and Justo Tobiano, as improperly documented aliens, and issued a warrant for their return. Jose and Justo Tobiano were arrested. Two cases were filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI, Judge Gaudencio Cloribel): Civil Case No. 58624 (certiorari to annul the Board’s decision) and Civil Case No. 58782 (habeas corpus for Jose and Justo Tobiano). On February 5, 1965, respondent judge granted bail and ordered the release of Jose and Justo Tobiano upon a P10,000 bond. The next day, the Commissioner of Immigration filed a petition with the Supreme Court for certiorari and injunction to annul these orders and restrain the judge from further proceedings in Case No. 58782. On February 10, 1965, the Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondent judge from enforcing his February 5 orders and from “otherwise taking cognizance of or in any manner assuming jurisdiction or [conducting] further proceedings [in] the case No. 58782.” On August 27, 1965, the Supreme Court amended this injunction to permit the judge to grant bail (P25,000 each) subject to the decision to be promulgated in the Supreme Court case. Despite the injunction, on January 6, 1967, respondent judge promulgated a joint decision in Cases 58624 and 58782, declaring the Board’s decision and warrant null and void and holding the Tobianos entitled to remain in the Philippines as citizens. This triggered contempt proceedings against respondent judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gaudencio Cloribel is guilty of indirect contempt for disobeying the Supreme Court’s injunctive order of February 10, 1965, as amended, by promulgating a joint decision in the cases subject to the injunction.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court held that the injunctive order of February 10, 1965 clearly prohibited him from conducting further proceedings in Case No. 58782. The amendatory resolution of August 27, 1965 only allowed him to grant bail; it did not lift the prohibition against deciding the case. The joint decision, which effectively granted the habeas corpus petition in Case 58782 by declaring the Tobianos citizens entitled to remain, constituted an open defiance and disobedience of the Court’s lawful order. His defense that the injunction became functus officio after the bail amendment was invalid. The Court found the disobedience willful, noting an attempt at subterfuge by issuing a joint decision that avoided explicit mention of Case 58782 in the dispositive portion. As a judge, he is not insulated from punishment for disobeying an order of the highest court. Applying the preservative principle, the Supreme Court sentenced him to pay a fine of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00).