G.R. No. 190171; March 14, 2011
ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ and REGIDOR TULALI, Petitioners, vs. The Hon. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Alen Ross Rodriguez (Provincial Prosecutor of Palawan) and Regidor Tulali (Prosecutor I) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the October 13, 2009 Decision of respondent Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor. The judge found them guilty of direct contempt and violating their oath as lawyers, imposing an indefinite suspension from law practice, a fine of ₱100,000.00 each, and an order to issue a public apology under pain of arrest. The contempt charge stemmed from Tulali’s filing of an “Ex-Parte Manifestation” on June 29, 2009, in Criminal Case No. 22240 for arson, where he was the trial prosecutor. The manifestation withdrew his appearance to dispel any suspicion of misdemeanor and collusion, attaching an administrative complaint (later withdrawn) filed by Rodriguez against Randy Awayan (the judge’s driver) and another, alleging a bribery attempt to secure the accused’s acquittal. Judge Blancaflor acquitted the accused on June 30, 2009. Subsequently, the judge summoned witnesses, including Tulali, and later Rodriguez, for an inquiry. On August 13, 2009, the judge informed petitioners he was proceeding against them for direct contempt based on Tulali’s manifestation. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Bienvenido Blancaflor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in finding petitioners guilty of direct contempt and imposing the corresponding penalties.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition. The Court held that Judge Blancaflor committed grave abuse of discretion.
1. On the Charge of Direct Contempt: The act of filing the Ex-Parte Manifestation did not constitute direct contempt. Direct contempt, under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court, refers to misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct its proceedings. Tulali’s filing of the manifestation, done in good faith to avoid suspicion of collusion, did not obstruct or interrupt the court proceedings. Rodriguez had no participation in the preparation or filing of the manifestation. The judge’s conclusion that it was filed to discredit the court was unfounded. Therefore, there was no factual or legal basis for the direct contempt charge.
2. On the Penalty Imposed: The penalties imposed were excessive and unlawful. For direct contempt, the RTC may only impose a fine not exceeding ₱2,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, as per Rule 71. The penalty of indefinite suspension from law practice, a ₱100,000.00 fine, and a compelled public apology under threat of arrest was unreasonable and beyond the court’s authority for a direct contempt charge.
3. On Due Process: The Court noted that for direct contempt, proceedings are summary, and hearings or confrontation of witnesses are not required. However, the core issue was the absence of a contumacious act warranting any contempt finding.
4. On Alleged “Vilification Campaign”: The Court indicated that any alleged campaign against the judge, if it existed, might constitute indirect contempt, not direct contempt. Proceedings for indirect contempt require compliance with specific rules, including the right to be heard and present evidence, which were not followed here.
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the October 13, 2009 Decision and the November 6, 2009 Order of respondent judge. The temporary restraining order previously issued was made permanent.