June 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698 - (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1523-MTJ) : June 02, 2008] JAIME RACINES V. JUDGE JOSE P. MORALLOS AND SHERIFF III BENJAMIN CABUSAO, JR.:
[A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698 - (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1523-MTJ) : June 02, 2008]
JAIME RACINES V. JUDGE JOSE P. MORALLOS AND SHERIFF III BENJAMIN CABUSAO, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 June 2008:
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698 - (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1523-MTJ) - JAIME RACINES v. JUDGE JOSE P. MORALLOS and SHERIFF III BENJAMIN CABUSAO, JR.
Atty. Onofre D. Manalad (movant) is seeking the reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated March 3, 2008 which imposed on him a fine of P5,000,00 for indirect contempt of court for filing a baseless complaint against respondents Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao, Jr.
The motion for reconsideration is without merit.
The fact that the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of Judge Morallos,[1] does not mean that die administrative case against him, for knowingly rendering air unjust judgment, other deceits; violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Code, the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct, filed by movant for his client. Jaime Racines, is justified since administrative liability does not necessarily arise from the mere fact that a judge issued an erroneous decision or order.[2] Moyant as counsel for the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[3] And mere allegation, without more is insufficient to hold a judge administratively liable.
Movant's assertion that after the Court admonished him in the Resolution dated March 2, 2005; he no longer took further action on the case is belied by the records. On March 29, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an Earnest Motion for Clarification where movant stated that he received on March 22, 2005 a notice of the Resolution dated March 2, 2005 which admonished him for initiating baseless complaints.[4] Despite the warning however, movant spill filed said motion which the Court treated as a second motion for recons certiorari.
Movant also avers that when he was required by the Court to file his Comment on Racines's Pagpapaliwanag, he had no idea that he was the one under investigation and that he was surprised to receive the Court's Resolution dated March 3, 2008 which found him guilty of indirect contempt of court. He also asks why was Racines's Pagpapaliwanag entertained when it was submitted almost two years after the complaint was closed and terminated; why was the unverified Pagpapaliwanag used as a complaint or petition for a non-existing and non-docketed proceeding; why was a judgment of "guilty" rendered against him when there was no valid "petition" or "complaint" and hearing conducted to give him a day in court and confront "informant" Racines?
Contrary to movant's assertion, it is not the second but the first paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 71[5] of the Rules of Court which applies in this case. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an Older or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC,[6] also states in paragraph 1 thereof that if upon formal inquiry it is found that the complaint is unfounded, complainant may he required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, and if he is a lawyer, why he should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
In the Resolution dated November 22, 2004, the Court directed Racines, as complainant therein, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case. Instead of heeding to Court's warning however, movant, as Racines's counsel, filed two motions[7], one of which was filed even after the Court's admonition to mo van t and his client not to file baseless complaints.
When Racines filed a Pagpapaliwanag, movant was required by the Court to comment thereon. He cannot claim that he did not know that he was the one under scrutiny as the accusations of Racines in the Pagpapaliwanag were clear. He also cannot claim that he was not given his day in court as he was asked to comment on the Pagpapaliwanag, precisely to give him the opportunity to refute the charges of Racines against:him. Indeed, it is not necessary that a full-blown trial be conducted[8] as it is well-established that the power to determine the existence of contempt of court rests exclusively with the court contemned.[9] In this case, the contemptuous act was committee; against this Court as rnovant violated A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC.
His contention that double jeopardy bars the imposition on him of fine since he was already admonished by the Court m its March 2, 2005 Resolution also has no merit. Admonition is not a penalty. It is a gentle or friendy reproof, or an expression of authoritative advice or warning.[10] The fact that the March 3, 2008 Resolution was rendered three years from the first warning, also has no bearing since administrative offenses do not prescribe and may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. And no matter how much time has elapsed from the time the act complained of was committed and the time of institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.[11 ]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Onofre Manalad's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied with finality for lack of substantial merit.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698 - (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1523-MTJ) - JAIME RACINES v. JUDGE JOSE P. MORALLOS and SHERIFF III BENJAMIN CABUSAO, JR.
RESOLUTION
Atty. Onofre D. Manalad (movant) is seeking the reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated March 3, 2008 which imposed on him a fine of P5,000,00 for indirect contempt of court for filing a baseless complaint against respondents Judge Jose P. Morallos and Sheriff Benjamin Cabusao, Jr.
The motion for reconsideration is without merit.
The fact that the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of Judge Morallos,[1] does not mean that die administrative case against him, for knowingly rendering air unjust judgment, other deceits; violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Civil Code, the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct, filed by movant for his client. Jaime Racines, is justified since administrative liability does not necessarily arise from the mere fact that a judge issued an erroneous decision or order.[2] Moyant as counsel for the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[3] And mere allegation, without more is insufficient to hold a judge administratively liable.
Movant's assertion that after the Court admonished him in the Resolution dated March 2, 2005; he no longer took further action on the case is belied by the records. On March 29, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an Earnest Motion for Clarification where movant stated that he received on March 22, 2005 a notice of the Resolution dated March 2, 2005 which admonished him for initiating baseless complaints.[4] Despite the warning however, movant spill filed said motion which the Court treated as a second motion for recons certiorari.
Movant also avers that when he was required by the Court to file his Comment on Racines's Pagpapaliwanag, he had no idea that he was the one under investigation and that he was surprised to receive the Court's Resolution dated March 3, 2008 which found him guilty of indirect contempt of court. He also asks why was Racines's Pagpapaliwanag entertained when it was submitted almost two years after the complaint was closed and terminated; why was the unverified Pagpapaliwanag used as a complaint or petition for a non-existing and non-docketed proceeding; why was a judgment of "guilty" rendered against him when there was no valid "petition" or "complaint" and hearing conducted to give him a day in court and confront "informant" Racines?
Contrary to movant's assertion, it is not the second but the first paragraph of Sec. 4, Rule 71[5] of the Rules of Court which applies in this case. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an Older or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC,[6] also states in paragraph 1 thereof that if upon formal inquiry it is found that the complaint is unfounded, complainant may he required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, and if he is a lawyer, why he should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
In the Resolution dated November 22, 2004, the Court directed Racines, as complainant therein, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case. Instead of heeding to Court's warning however, movant, as Racines's counsel, filed two motions[7], one of which was filed even after the Court's admonition to mo van t and his client not to file baseless complaints.
When Racines filed a Pagpapaliwanag, movant was required by the Court to comment thereon. He cannot claim that he did not know that he was the one under scrutiny as the accusations of Racines in the Pagpapaliwanag were clear. He also cannot claim that he was not given his day in court as he was asked to comment on the Pagpapaliwanag, precisely to give him the opportunity to refute the charges of Racines against:him. Indeed, it is not necessary that a full-blown trial be conducted[8] as it is well-established that the power to determine the existence of contempt of court rests exclusively with the court contemned.[9] In this case, the contemptuous act was committee; against this Court as rnovant violated A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC.
His contention that double jeopardy bars the imposition on him of fine since he was already admonished by the Court m its March 2, 2005 Resolution also has no merit. Admonition is not a penalty. It is a gentle or friendy reproof, or an expression of authoritative advice or warning.[10] The fact that the March 3, 2008 Resolution was rendered three years from the first warning, also has no bearing since administrative offenses do not prescribe and may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. And no matter how much time has elapsed from the time the act complained of was committed and the time of institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.[11 ]
WHEREFORE, Atty. Onofre Manalad's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied with finality for lack of substantial merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] In CA-G.R. SP No 85605 dated May 28, 2007.
[2] Tiongco v. Savillo, AM No RTI-02-17 19, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA -48, 58
[3] Cruz v. Ali�o-Hormuchelos A M No. CA-04-38, March 31, 2004- 426 SCRA 573, 578-579
[4] Rollo. p. 89.
[5] See. 4. How proceedings commenced. � proceedings for indirect contempt may be initialed motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges fur indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
[6] "Resolution Prescribing Measures to Protect Members of the Judiciary From Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints, dated October 14, 2003.
[7] Motion for Reconsideration and Compliance dated December 15, 2004 and Earnest Motion for Clarification dated March 23, 2005.
[8] See Limbona v. Let, G.R. No. I 73290, November 20, 2006 507 SCRA-152. 461.
[9] Id.
[10] Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of OIC Melinda Deseo, M TC General Trias, Cavite, 392 Phil 122, 128 (2000), Tobias v. Veloso, G.R. No. L-40224, September 23, 1980, 100 SCRA 177, 184.
[11] Heck v. Judge Santos, 467 Phil 798, 815-816 (2004)
