Title
Abuyco vs. Zosa
Case
G.R. No. L-25800
Decision Date
Aug 31, 1970
City officials refused to pay a judge's gasoline allowance, citing administrative concerns; judge initiated contempt charges, deemed excessive by the Supreme Court.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25800)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • The case involves petitioners Emeterio A. Buyco (City Auditor), Eleno B. Kabanlit (City Treasurer), and Hugo B. Daguman (Assistant City Treasurer) of Ozamiz City, who were charged with contempt by respondent Judge Mariano A. Zosa of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental.
    • The contempt charge arose from the petitioners' refusal to approve and pay Judge Zosa's gasoline allowance vouchers, which were granted under Resolution No. 72 of the Ozamiz City Council.
  2. Resolution No. 72 and Gasoline Allowance:

    • Resolution No. 72, dated January 22, 1965, granted Judge Zosa a gasoline allowance of P100.00 per month from August 1, 1964, to June 30, 1965.
    • Judge Zosa submitted vouchers for P1,100.00 (covering August 1964 to June 1965) and P600.00 (covering July to December 1965) for payment.
  3. Refusal to Pay the Vouchers:

    • The petitioners refused to pay the vouchers, citing the lack of approval from the Department of Justice.
    • Judge Zosa sought approval from the Office of the President through the Department of Justice, but the petitioners still refused to obligate the funds, fearing a potential overdraft in the city's finances.
  4. Contempt Proceedings:

    • On March 2, 1966, Judge Zosa resubmitted the vouchers, now accompanied by the required approval. However, the City Auditor limited the allowance to periods when Judge Zosa was on official duty in Ozamiz City.
    • Judge Zosa, feeling humiliated and ridiculed, suspended court proceedings and initiated contempt charges against the petitioners.
    • During the contempt hearing, Judge Zosa ordered the arrest of City Auditor Buyco for allegedly sneering at the court, though he was released shortly after.
  5. Specification of Charges:

    • Judge Zosa accused the petitioners of conspiring to humiliate and ridicule him, causing emotional distress and disrupting court proceedings.

Issue:

  1. Whether the petitioners' refusal to approve and pay Judge Zosa's gasoline allowance vouchers constituted contempt of court.
  2. Whether Judge Zosa's actions in initiating contempt proceedings and ordering the arrest of the petitioners were within his jurisdiction or amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
  3. Whether the gasoline allowance granted to Judge Zosa was a matter of right or a discretionary privilege.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ruled that the contempt proceedings initiated by Judge Zosa were improper and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized the need for judges to act with restraint and avoid using judicial powers to address personal grievances. The decision reinforced the principle that judicial independence and dignity must be upheld at all times.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.