GR 173290; (March, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173290 ; March 27, 2007
ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE of Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Br. 83, MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG, LT. COL. JALANDONI COTA, MAYOR AMER ODEN BALINDONG & ALI BALINDONG, Respondents
FACTS
In a prior final and executory Decision in G.R. No. 159962, the Supreme Court affirmed the Department of Justice resolution directing the filing of specific criminal charges—two for murder with attempted murder, two for frustrated murder, and one for attempted murder—against the private respondents. The Court ordered the trial court to issue warrants of arrest and admonished the respondents against filing further pleadings. Despite this finality, the private respondents filed a “Motion for Determination of Probable Cause and/or Motion to Dismiss” before the Regional Trial Court. After the inhibition of the original judge, the case was raffled to respondent Judge Ralph S. Lee. Judge Lee issued an Order granting the motion and directing the downgrading of all charges to homicide and attempted/frustrated homicide, before also inhibiting himself.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents, including Judge Lee, are guilty of indirect contempt for defying the final and executory judgment in G.R. No. 159962.
RULING
Yes, both the private respondents and Judge Lee are guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court’s decision in G.R. No. 159962, which had already attained finality, conclusively settled the proper criminal charges to be filed. By persistently filing motions seeking a redetermination of probable cause and a downgrading of the offenses, the private respondents engaged in a deliberate ploy to delay the trial and refused to abide by the Court’s final pronouncement. Their actions constituted a willful disregard of the Court’s lawful order. Judge Lee, in granting the motion and ordering the downgrade of the charges, effectively substituted his own judgment for the final and executory ruling of the Supreme Court. A trial judge has no authority to alter, modify, or circumvent a final decision of the highest court. His order was a clear defiance of a definitive judicial mandate. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on each respondent for indirect contempt. The subsequent motion for reconsideration, framed as a motion for clarification, was denied with finality as it merely rehashed issues already definitively resolved.