G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176. April 20, 2009.
PROSECUTOR JORGE D. BACULI, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi filed an information for frustrated homicide against Jay Ballestrinos. Respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen directed complainant to submit evidence of service of the notice of preliminary investigation. Complainant informed the court that the accused failed to submit his counter-affidavit. Respondent later directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for unfounded statements in his pleadings. Complainant filed several motions, including a motion to dismiss and a motion for voluntary inhibition. In a Decision dated December 18, 2006, respondent found complainant guilty of direct contempt for making scurrilous and contumacious statements in his “Urgent Reiterative Motion,” sentencing him to a fine of ₱1,500.00 and one day imprisonment. In another Decision dated June 7, 2007, respondent cited complainant for indirect contempt, sentencing him to a fine of ₱20,000.00 and three days imprisonment. Complainant filed a notice of appeal. Respondent, in an Order dated August 6, 2007, directed complainant to post a supersedeas bond of ₱35,000.00 to stay execution. Complainant moved for reduction, but it was treated as a scrap of paper for non-compliance with notice of hearing rules. Respondent issued an Order dated August 20, 2007, directing a writ of execution and warrant of arrest. Complainant filed various motions, which were declared resolved or functus officio. In twin Orders dated March 24, 2008, respondent declared the contempt decisions final and executory. Complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, alleging respondent violated procedural rules on contempt, fixed an excessive bond, acted with revenge due to a pending libel case complainant indicted respondent in, and exhibited “power complex.” Respondent denied the charges, asserting he acted in judicial function and that complainant failed to exhaust judicial remedies.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and other charges related to the contempt proceedings against complainant Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court held that a pleading containing derogatory, offensive, or malicious statements submitted before a court where proceedings are pending constitutes direct contempt, not indirect contempt. Respondent committed a serious blunder in citing complainant for indirect contempt. Furthermore, even assuming the statements could be indirect contempt, respondent failed to follow the proper procedure under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which requires initiation by a verified petition or a formal charge from the court. Respondent’s error constituted gross ignorance of the law, a serious offense. The Court noted respondent had been previously reprimanded for conduct unbecoming a judge in Mane v. Belen and was undeterred. The Court suspended respondent from office for six months without salary and benefits and sternly warned that repetition would merit a more serious penalty. Other charges related to the judiciousness of respondent’s orders were not administratively actionable in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or corrupt motive, as complainant failed to exhaust judicial remedies.