KELLY R. WICKER and ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, petitioners, vs. HON. PAUL T. ARCANGEL, as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Makati, Branch 134, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Kelly Wicker and his counsel, Atty. Orlando Rayos, were found guilty of direct contempt by respondent Judge Paul Arcangel. The contempt arose from a verified motion for inhibition filed by Atty. Rayos on behalf of Wicker. The motion alleged that Judge Arcangel was “personally recruited from the south” by the opposing counsel, Atty. Benjamin Santos, or his wife, a former Judicial and Bar Council member, against whom Wicker had previously filed an administrative case. It further insinuated bias due to the judge’s and said counsel’s consecutive absences from hearings, casting doubt on the judge’s partiality and integrity.
Judge Arcangel deemed the allegations “malicious, derogatory and contemptuous” and ordered petitioners to show cause. In their explanation, Atty. Rayos claimed he merely acted in a “representative capacity,” while Wicker asserted he relied on information from a purported court employee. Finding the explanation unsatisfactory, the judge sentenced each to five days imprisonment and a P100 fine. Their motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioners guilty of direct contempt for the allegations in their motion for inhibition.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion, modifying the penalty. The Court held that while the motion contained improper and disrespectful allegations warranting a contempt finding, the imposed jail sentence was unjustified under the circumstances. Direct contempt requires misconduct in the presence of or so near the court as to obstruct justice, and punishment should be exercised with restraint, not vindictiveness.
The Court emphasized that a motion for inhibition, even if based on unverified information, does not automatically constitute contempt if filed in good faith. Here, the allegations, though intemperate, stemmed from Wicker’s apprehensions, and he later admitted the information was unverified. Atty. Rayos, however, failed in his duty as an officer of the court by incorporating scandalous assertions without adequate verification, violating his primary duty to uphold the court’s dignity. Considering Wicker’s advanced age and failing health, and the fact that the contempt power must be used judiciously to correct, not retaliate, the jail term was excessive. The fine was increased to P200 each, but the imprisonment was deleted.
