AM 03 11 30 SC; (June, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC; June 9, 2005
Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justices Reynato S. Puno, Santiago M. Kapunan (Ret.), Bernardo P. Pardo (Ret.) and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Supreme Court, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Court Administrator, Justices Bennie Adefuin-Dela Cruz and Perlita Tria-Tirona, Court of Appeals.
FACTS
Complainant Aurelio Indencia Arrienda filed an administrative complaint accusing several Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices of graft and corruption. He alleged they participated in a “1-2-3” modus operandi to swindle him by rendering unjust decisions in a series of cases involving a loan and property dispute with the GSIS. The scheme purportedly consisted of: (1) then Judge Tirona dismissing his complaint at the RTC; (2) the CA, through Justice Velasco as ponente with concurrences from Justices Ynares-Santiago and Adefuin-de la Cruz, affirming the RTC; and (3) the Supreme Court First Division, through Justice Puno with concurrences from Justices Kapunan and Pardo, denying his petition. He used highly derogatory language, calling the Justices “Crooks in Robes” and “Swindlers in Robes,” and later filed a separate complaint against Chief Justice Davide, labeling him the “Chief-Swindler-in-Robe” for referring his letters to Justice Puno.
ISSUE
Whether the complainant is liable for contempt and for abuse of court processes for his unfounded accusations and disrespectful language against the Justices.
RULING
Yes, the complainant is guilty of contempt and abuse of court processes. The Court emphasized that judges cannot be subjected to administrative complaints simply for performing their official duty of adjudicating cases, as long as they act within their jurisdiction and absent any showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. The decisions rendered against the complainant were based on the merits of his case—primarily his failure to pay his loan and redeem the property—and the application of pertinent laws to the established facts. His allegations of a conspiracy and corrupt motives were completely baseless.
The Court held that the right to criticize judicial decisions must be exercised responsibly and with respect. The complainant’s use of scandalous, offensive, and intemperate language, accusing magistrates of corruption and judicial terrorism without any proof, constituted direct contempt. Such conduct degrades the administration of justice, undermines public confidence in the judiciary, and obstructs the orderly functioning of the courts. It is an abuse of the judicial process intended to harass and intimidate the Justices. Accordingly, the Court found the complainant guilty of contempt and sentenced him to pay a fine of P30,000.00, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.