G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-93-759 September 5, 1997
Emiliano Veluz, complainant, vs. Judge Raul V. Babaran, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emiliano Veluz was the defendant in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 307) before the Municipal Trial Court of Diffun, Quirino, presided by respondent Judge Raul V. Babaran. To resolve an issue of territorial jurisdiction, the court scheduled an ocular inspection/relocation survey of the disputed land for November 21, 1992. On that date, respondent judge and the opposing counsel, Atty. Ernesto Salun-at, arrived at the property and met complainant. When asked if his lawyer sent a representative, complainant did not answer, turned around, took a bolo, and rushed towards the judge and the lawyer. Despite being cautioned to stop and drop his weapon, complainant continued his advance, prompting the judge and the lawyer to flee for their safety. Complainant hurled threatening remarks at them as they fled. Later that day, respondent judge issued an order citing complainant for direct contempt of court for his disrespectful behavior and for disrupting the court proceedings. The order directed the arrest and detention of complainant “until further orders from the court.” Complainant was subsequently arrested and jailed from November 23 to December 3, 1992. Complainant filed an administrative case seeking respondent’s dismissal and disbarment, alleging grave abuse of authority and/or ignorance of the law for citing him for contempt and ordering his indefinite incarceration. Complainant also charged respondent with partiality for not citing Atty. Salun-at for contempt, alleging the lawyer had a handgun and also shouted threats.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Raul V. Babaran committed grave abuse of authority and/or gross ignorance of the law in citing complainant for direct contempt and ordering his indefinite incarceration.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The Court held that complainant’s acts of rushing towards the judge and opposing counsel with a bolo to prevent the ocular inspection, coupled with his threatening remarks, undoubtedly constituted direct contempt of court under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, and respondent was justified in holding him liable. However, the Court found that respondent committed a blunder in ordering complainant’s indefinite incarceration, as the applicable rule limited the punishment for direct contempt in an inferior court to imprisonment not exceeding one day or a fine not exceeding ten pesos, or both. Nevertheless, the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent acted in good faith, honestly believing his actions were within the law, and his primary consideration was to prevent further obstruction of court proceedings and ensure safety. While respondent should be admonished for failing to exercise the required degree of care and knowledge of basic legal principles, the administrative complaint for disciplinary action was rendered moot and academic as respondent had already resigned from the bench, with his resignation accepted by the President on December 7, 1993. The complaint for disbarment was dismissed for lack of merit, as the acts complained of did not constitute a valid ground.