G.R. No. 120074 June 10, 1997
LEAH P. ADORIO, petitioner, vs. HON. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, respondent. PHILIP SEE, intervenor.
FACTS
Petitioner Leah P. Adorio was the private prosecutor for Philip G. See, the private complainant in Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-55933 to Q-94-55957 for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 pending before respondent Judge Lucas P. Bersamin. Pre-trial concluded, and trial was set for March 8, 15, and 22, 1995. Unknown to petitioner, counsel for the accused filed requests for subpoenas duces tecum requiring bank officials to appear on March 8, 1995, which were issued without notice to the prosecution. On March 8, petitioner was surprised by the presence of the bank officials. During the hearing, petitioner objected, arguing she was not furnished a copy of the request for subpoena and insinuating the defense was hiding something. She also recounted an incident from July 13, 1994, during the accused’s arraignment, where after the accused failed to appear and the court ordered a warrant of arrest, a clerk allegedly whispered to someone and then announced the accused would be late, which incidents were not reflected in the record. Respondent Judge directed petitioner to file a written motion for inhibition. Petitioner filed a “Motion for Inhibition and for Re-Raffle of Case,” alleging the issuance of the subpoena without notice was irregular, disruptive of orderly procedure, and showed bias and that the court and court procedure were under the “control of the accused.” The trial court granted the motion for inhibition but, in the same Order dated May 5, 1995, found petitioner and her client guilty of direct contempt for disrespect, sentencing each to two days imprisonment and a P200 fine. Petitioner filed this special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the statements in petitioner’s motion for inhibition alleging irregularity in the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum and that the court was under the “control of the accused” constitute direct contempt.
RULING
Yes, the statements constitute direct contempt. The Court ruled that there was nothing irregular in the issuance of the subpoenas duces tecum, as requests for their issuance do not require notice to the adverse party. Petitioner’s allegations were unfounded and displayed a misplaced sense of procedural requirements. The accusation that the court and its procedure were under the “control of the accused” was unfair, disrespectful, and irresponsible, attributing to the judge motives not supported by the record. Such statements constitute direct contempt as they disrespect the court and tend to impede the administration of justice. However, the penalty imposed was too severe. The purpose of contempt penalties is corrective. The Supreme Court modified the penalty, reducing it to a fine of P200.00 only for both petitioner and intervenor Philip See, and ordered the criminal cases re-raffled.
