G.R. No. L-59072 April 25, 1985
HIDULFO D. NAZARENO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ROQUE M. BARNES, Judge, Court of First Instance of Baganga, Davao Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hidulfo D. Nazareno wrote a sworn letter-complaint dated August 22, 1981, to President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The letter, subscribed before a fiscal, detailed specific charges against respondent Judge Roque M. Barnes, including alleged ignorance of the law in several decided cases, acts of harassment, incurring unpaid debts in the community, using undue influence to secure free airplane rides, and habitual absenteeism. Nazareno submitted this in line with the President’s call for public feedback on the judiciary’s reorganization.
Upon obtaining a copy of this letter, Judge Barnes himself initiated and presided over a contempt proceeding against Nazareno in his own court, docketed as Criminal Case No. 436 for “Indirect Contempt of Court and Judge.” The charge alleged that Nazareno’s letter, which was also reportedly discussed publicly, tended to impede the administration of justice by demeaning the court’s authority. Judge Barnes found Nazareno guilty of indirect contempt and sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine of One Thousand Pesos.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Barnes committed grave abuse of discretion in finding Nazareno guilty of indirect contempt based on the sworn letter-complaint addressed to the President.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the contempt order. The Court ruled that Nazareno’s complaints, made in a sworn communication to the President as part of an official call for feedback on judicial reorganization, do not constitute actionable contempt. The power to punish for contempt is intended to be used on the preservative, not vindictive, principle and for corrective, not retaliatory, purposes. A judge, when acting as both the offended party and the adjudicator in a contempt charge arising from criticism of his own conduct, must exercise exceptional restraint.
Here, Judge Barnes failed to meet this standard. He acted summarily and arbitrarily, using the contempt power in a vindictive and retaliatory manner against a citizen who was, in good faith, responding to a presidential directive. The Court emphasized that a judge has nothing to fear from such complaints if he has done nothing wrong. Furthermore, the procedure denied Nazareno due process. The Court noted that the administrative complaints against Judge Barnes, which included Nazareno’s allegations, had already been investigated by a Justice of the Appellate Court, who recommended exoneration, and were ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court. The act of filing a sworn administrative complaint, by itself, is not contemptuous. Therefore, Judge Barnes acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.