GR 213525; (November, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 213525 November 21, 2017
FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; and PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE, Respondents
FACTS
The Supreme Court, in a January 27, 2015 Resolution, denied Fortune Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Reconsideration for procedural deficiencies and for failing to prove grave abuse of discretion by the COA. The COA had disallowed the Provincial Government of Antique’s payment for a group insurance program for barangay officials. Concurrently, the Court required the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to show cause why they should not be punished for indirect contempt due to the use of harsh and disrespectful language in their motion. Atty. Fortaleza was also ordered to explain why he should not be disbarred.
In their Joint Explanation, the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza, now represented by former Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr., apologized for the statements. They offered justifications for the procedural lapses, such as changes in the postal system and time constraints. Atty. Fortaleza pleaded for leniency, citing his pro bono service. Separately, the petitioner filed a Manifestation with a Motion for Leave to file a Second Motion for Reconsideration, arguing anew on the timeliness of its original petition and the substantive legality of the insurance program under the Local Government Code.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the petitioner and its counsel were guilty of indirect contempt for using offensive language in their pleadings. A secondary procedural issue was the propriety of the petitioner’s Second Motion for Reconsideration.
RULING
The Court found the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza guilty of indirect contempt. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that respect for the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Contempt of court is a willful disregard of judicial authority, and under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court, any improper conduct that degrades the administration of justice constitutes indirect contempt. The language used in the Motion for Reconsideration, which accused the Court of “judicial tyranny” and described its actions as “high-handed,” was unequivocally offensive and disrespectful. Such statements directly impair the court’s dignity and authority. An apology, while a mitigating factor, does not absolve the contemptuous act. The Court imposed a fine of ₱30,000.00 on Fortune Life and ₱15,000.00 on Atty. Fortaleza, with a stern warning.
Regarding the Second Motion for Reconsideration, the Court denied it outright. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules. The petitioner’s attempt to invoke the “fresh period” rule from Neypes v. Court of Appeals was unavailing, as this doctrine applies to appeals under Rule 41, not to petitions for certiorari under Rule 64 from COA decisions. The Court sustained its original finding that the petition was filed out of time and lacked merit.