G.R. No. L-47244. January 16, 1979.
TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. and RODRIGO LIBARNES, petitioners, vs. JUDGE LAURO TAPUCAR, as District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City (Branch I), and EDUARDO CURATO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., counsel for co-petitioner Rodrigo Libarnes in a civil case, was precluded by respondent Judge from presenting rebuttal evidence on an accounting issue, deemed waived. Calo’s motion to set aside the order contained strong language, calling the order “obnoxious” and “abhorrent,” which prompted the Judge to reprimand him. Calo filed a motion for reconsideration, further defending his right to criticize an allegedly unfair order through formal pleadings. Initially, the Judge, in an order dated July 8, 1977, seemed to relent, allowing Calo to file a memorandum incorporating his rebuttal points.
However, during a hearing on October 17, 1977, the Judge unexpectedly revived the contempt issue. After an exchange where Calo stated he would seek higher judicial relief if cited for contempt, the Judge suddenly declared Calo in direct contempt, verbally suspending him from law practice and postponing all his cases. Despite an ex parte motion for reconsideration, the Judge refused to lift the suspension, formalizing it in a written order on October 24, 1977.

ISSUE

1. Whether the suspension of Atty. Calo for direct contempt was valid.
2. Whether the order limiting the presentation of rebuttal evidence to a memorandum violated due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. On the first issue, the Court found the suspension order invalid. While a judge has the power to punish direct contempt summarily, this power must be exercised judiciously and not as a retaliatory measure for personal resentment. The Court noted that the judge’s initial order of July 8, 1977, which effectively allowed the petitioner to present his rebuttal points, rendered the earlier contentious language moot. The subsequent revival of the contempt charge during the October hearing, leading to an immediate verbal suspension, indicated that the judge was motivated by pique rather than a cool and sober judgment necessary for contempt citations. The Court emphasized that a judge must resist the temptation to use the contempt power to avenge personal slights, as the office is a public trust. The period Calo was already under suspension (from October 17 to December 7, 1977) was deemed more than sufficient atonement for any impropriety in his pleadings.
On the second issue, the Court nullified the July 8, 1977, order. It held that limiting the presentation of rebuttal evidence to a mere memorandum, instead of allowing its formal presentation in court, was irregular and raised serious due process concerns. To ensure a fair opportunity for petitioner Libarnes to be heard and to avoid any denial of justice, the Court ordered that he be allowed to present his rebuttal evidence in the proper manner at the earliest opportunity. Costs were imposed on the private respondent.