G.R. No. L-24522. May 29, 1975.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FERMIN S. MAGLASANG, as Assistant City Fiscal of Ormoc City, petitioners, vs. HON. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance, Ormoc City, respondent.

FACTS

Assistant City Fiscal Fermin S. Maglasang was adjudged guilty of direct contempt and fined P100.00 by respondent Judge Numeriano G. Estenzo. The contempt charge stemmed from an incident where a witness, Andres Mojadas, appeared in court despite a prosecution decision to no longer utilize him. The court had issued a standing order for the exclusion of witnesses and a subpoena for Mojadas. Fiscal Maglasang informed the witness he need not attend, but did not formally notify the court to cancel the subpoena. When questioned, Maglasang initially stated there was no necessity to notify the court, though the transcript revealed he added he planned to ask the Clerk of Court to cancel it.
The judge found the fiscal’s initial answer insulting and disrespectful, placing the court in an embarrassing position. When Maglasang attempted to explain further and reiterate his lack of disrespectful intent, the judge successively increased the fine from an initial P50.00 to P75.00, and finally to P100.00. The petitioners filed this certiorari proceeding to annul the contempt order.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Judge Estenzo committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Fiscal Maglasang guilty of direct contempt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, nullified the contempt order, and ordered the fine remitted. The Court held that while the judicial power inherently includes the authority to punish contempt to preserve order and respect, this power must be exercised with restraint and judiciousness, not vindictively. The test is whether the conduct constituted a contumacious flouting of judicial authority that obstructed proceedings.
Here, the fiscal’s conduct, viewed objectively, did not meet this high standard. His failure to notify the court formally to cancel the subpoena, while perhaps a lapse in protocol, was susceptible to an innocent explanation and was not shown to be a deliberate act of defiance or disrespect. The successive increase of the fine upon the fiscal’s attempts to explain further indicated an improper infusion of personal reaction rather than an impersonal assessment necessary for contempt adjudication. The Court, citing Villavicencio v. Lukban, emphasized that the contempt power should be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle. A mere admonition would have sufficed under the circumstances. The respondent judge’s actions exceeded the permissible limits of the contempt power, constituting grave abuse of discretion.