G.R. No. RTJ-93-1099. August 1, 1994.
Chief Prosecutor Zenon L. De Guia, complainant, vs. Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

Chief State Prosecutor Zenon L. De Guia filed a letter-complaint dated October 4, 1993, charging respondent Judge Francisco Ma. Guerrero, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34 of Calamba, Laguna, with gross ignorance of the law and acts constituting a direct affront to the dignity of the Prosecutor’s office. The complaint arose from an incident during the trial of Criminal Case No. 2689-90-C (People vs. Amorino Sanchez and Tita Sales for Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents). On September 20, 1993, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Macario A. Agosila presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-164 (2766) and had it re-marked as Exhibit “A”. He then requested a suspension of the trial to photocopy the original document. Instead of acting on the request, respondent Judge declared Agosila in direct contempt of court to “teach him a lesson” for unduly delaying the court’s business due to his failure to prepare photocopies ahead of time and to investigate records at the Register of Deeds. Respondent Judge ordered Agosila’s arrest and detention for five hours in the Calamba Police Station Jail, later reduced to two hours before his release.
In his Comment, respondent Judge defended his actions, arguing that Agosila’s request for suspension, mismarking of exhibits, and reliance on irrelevant evidence demonstrated delaying tactics and lack of cooperation with the continuous trial system. He cited other instances of Agosila’s unpreparedness and prayed for the complaint’s dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge acted arbitrarily and with gross ignorance of the law in citing Prosecutor Agosila for direct contempt and ordering his arrest and detention for his request to suspend trial to photocopy a document.

RULING

The Supreme Court found merit in the complaint. It held that respondent Judge improperly exercised his contempt power. First, Agosila’s request for a suspension or continuance of trial was a legitimate prerogative addressed to the court’s sound discretion, not an act of contumacy. The Court cited People vs. Sanz-Maceda, stating that adjournments are part of the procedural system and should serve justice and fairness. Agosila showed respect by submitting his request to the court’s authority.
Second, the power to punish for contempt under Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey, and as a last resort. The Court cited Noe Baja vs. Macandong, emphasizing that contempt power should be preservative, not vindictive. Respondent Judge had a less harsh alternative: simply denying the request for suspension. The Office of the Court Administrator noted that Agosila’s unpreparedness did not constitute direct contempt, and as an officer of the court, he deserved respect.
The Court imposed a fine of P2,500.00 on respondent Judge for improperly citing Agosila for direct contempt and ordering his detention without sufficient legal basis, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.