G.R. No. 263384, August 15, 2023
Atty. Rico V. Domingo, Dean Antonio Gabriel M. La Viña, Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis, Dean Anna Maria D. Abad, Dean Rodel A. Taton, Atty. Artemio P. Calumpong, Atty. Christianne Grace F. Salonga, Atty. Ray Paolo J. Santiago, and Atty. Ayn Ruth Z. Tolentino-Azarcon, Petitioners, vs. Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa, Respondent.

FACTS

The controversy arose after Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, issued a Resolution on September 21, 2022, dismissing the Department of Justice’s petition to proscribe the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army as a terrorist group. On September 23, 2022, respondent Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa uploaded a public post on her Facebook page titled “A Judgment Straight from the Bowels of Communist Hell,” where she launched multiple insults against the judge, claimed the judge weaponized the court to rule in favor of the CPP-NPA-NDF, and explicitly threatened to kill Judge Magdoza-Malagar, stating: “So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP NPA NDF must be killed because there is no difference [in my mind] between a member of the CPP NPA NDF and their friends, then please be lenient with me.” That same day, she uploaded a second post titled “The Judge Marlo Malagar Horror Series,” where she alleged the judge based her decision on the constitution of the terrorist organization and threatened to bomb the offices of judges she deemed “friends of terrorists,” stating: “I really reallllly want to build an organization with the noble ideal of establishing a Justice system that is free from the infiltration of the terrorist vermin… then members of my organization will start bombing the offices of these corrupt judges who are friends of terrorists- even if they kneel before us and beg for their lives.” The following day, she uploaded another Facebook post describing Judge Magdoza-Malagar as “unprincipled and rotten” and claiming her husband was a member of the CPP.

ISSUE

Whether the statements made by Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa on Facebook constitute contempt of court.

RULING

Yes, the statements constitute indirect contempt of court. The Court held that while freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, it must not threaten other equally important public interests such as the maintenance of the courts’ integrity and the orderly administration of justice. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts are not constitutionally protected speech. Badoy-Partosa’s posts were not mere criticism but constituted serious threats to the life and personal safety of a judge and her family, calculated to undermine the judicial function and the rule of law. The statements were made with malice and bad faith, intended to intimidate and influence the judge, and posed a clear and present danger to the independence of the judiciary. The Court found her guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court for improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. She was fined Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.