G.R. No. L-39914 July 2, 1984
AMADO S. CENIZA, petitioner, vs. ALEJANDRO E. SEBASTIAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, 6th Judicial District, Branch VIII, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Amado S. Ceniza, an attorney, filed an ex-parte motion seeking the inhibition of respondent Judge Alejandro E. Sebastian from a civil case. The motion contained allegations that the judge’s conduct was “highly irregular, corrupt and a gross misconduct,” and noted that an administrative case had already been filed against the judge with the Supreme Court. Respondent Judge found the language contemptuous, specifically the use of the word “corrupt,” and issued an order holding petitioner guilty of direct contempt, sentencing him to ten days imprisonment and a P200 fine. A warrant for his arrest was subsequently issued.
Petitioner fled to avoid arrest and filed this certiorari and prohibition proceeding, arguing the order and warrant were unlawful, inspired by vengeance, and constituted grave abuse of discretion. He sought to have them declared null and void. Respondent Judge, in his comment, justified the contempt order, asserting that the use of disrespectful and offensive language in a pleading constitutes direct contempt punishable summarily to protect the court’s authority.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of direct contempt and imposing a ten-day prison sentence.

RULING

The Supreme Court sustained the finding of direct contempt but modified the penalty. The legal logic is twofold. First, the Court reaffirmed the doctrine that a judge may punish contemptuous behavior to preserve judicial authority and dignity. The use of insulting and offensive epithets, such as labeling a judge “corrupt” in a formal pleading, constitutes direct contempt (contempt in facie curiae) as it disrespects the court and interrupts the administration of justice. An attorney, as an officer of the court, is not justified in using vile language and is subject to summary punishment for such conduct.
However, the Court emphasized that the contempt power must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle. The circumstances revealed a background of deep-seated ill-will between the parties, stemming from a prior contempt order against petitioner and the subsequent administrative complaint against the judge. This context made it difficult for respondent Judge to act with the requisite restraint and judiciousness. While the language was contumacious, the imposition of a prison term appeared influenced by personal grievance rather than solely by the need to preserve the court’s dignity. Thus, the prison sentence and arrest warrant constituted an excess of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court granted certiorari, declaring the ten-day sentence null and void and quashing the warrant of arrest. The fine was increased to P500.00, balancing the need to sanction the contemptuous language with the principle that the penalty must be corrective, not retaliatory. The temporary restraining order was made permanent regarding the imprisonment.