Facts:

Leah P. Adorio (petitioner) filed a special civil action for certiorari against Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin (respondent), presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, on June 10, 1997. This case arose from an order dated May 5, 1995, wherein the respondent found both the petitioner and Philip See (the private complainant) guilty of direct contempt of court, sentencing them to two days of imprisonment and imposing a fine of P200. Adorio was representing Philip See in multiple criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-55933 to Q-94-55957) involving violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Pre-trial concluded on January 16, 1995, with trial dates scheduled for March 8, 15, and 22, 1995. Unbeknownst to Adorio, the defense counsel arranged for subpoenas for bank officials to be present during the March 8 trial, which led to her unexpected confrontation with these witnesses.

During the March 8 hearing, after a recess was called by the judge, Adorio expressed her surprise and disco

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• This is a special civil action for certiorari seeking to set aside an Order dated May 5, 1995, by Judge Lucas P. Bersamin of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 96.
• The Order found petitioner Leah P. Adorio, who was counsel for the private complainant Philip G. See, in direct contempt and imposed sanctions.

Pre-Trial and Trial Arrangements

• The pre-trial in the related criminal cases (Criminal Case Nos. Q-94-55933 to Q-94-55957) was concluded on January 16, 1995.
• The trial on the merits was scheduled for March 8, 15, and 22, 1995, with the first presentation of evidence set on March 8, 1995.

Incident on March 8, 1995

• Petitioner, expecting to present the prosecution’s evidence, was surprised by the presence of several bank officials in court.
• The bank officials appeared pursuant to subpoenas duces tecum issued on February 6, 7, and 14, 1995 at the request of the defense counsel for the accused.

Arguments and Exchanges in Court

• During the hearing, petitioner observed that she was not furnished any copy of the subpoena request made by Atty. Rivera, the accused’s counsel, thus impeding her ability to prepare for cross-examination.
• Atty. Rivera defended the issuance of the subpoenas, arguing that it was not a litigated motion and that there was no obligation to give notice to the opposing counsel.
• Petitioner raised concerns regarding the secrecy of the process, implying that such conduct might suggest manipulation of court proceedings.

Allegations of Procedural Irregularities

• Petitioner contended that issuing subpoenas without notifying the private prosecutor was irregular, especially since it disrupted the scheduled presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
• Petitioner also referenced an earlier incident on July 13, 1994, during the arraignment of the accused—where procedural lapses allegedly occurred (e.g., the late appearance of the accused and the suspicious conduct of the court clerk)—claiming these facts were omitted from the official records.

Motion for Inhibition and Re-Raffle of Cases

• In view of the perceived irregularities, petitioner filed a Motion for Inhibition and for Re-Raffle of Cases, requesting:
• The disqualification of the presiding judge from hearing the criminal cases;
• The reassigning of the cases to another branch of the Regional Trial Court; and
• The suspension of the hearing pending a resolution on the motion.
• The Motion argued that the actions taken demonstrated bias and undue influence of the accused over the court proceedings.

Trial Court’s Order

• The trial court, in its Order of May 5, 1995, granted the motion on inhibition but concurrently declared petitioner and her client, Philip G. See, guilty of direct contempt.
• The Order imposed a penalty of two (2) days imprisonment in the City Jail of Quezon City and a fine of P200.00 on each, remedial measures aimed at preserving the dignity and authority of the court.

Rationale Behind the Trial Court’s Order

• The trial court regarded the petitioner’s allegations as unfounded and characterized the nature of her statements as severely disrespectful toward the court and its presiding judge.
• It was emphasized that the issuance of a subpoena at the instance of a party does not require prior notice under the Rules of Court, and the petitioner’s objections were seen as a misplaced sense of procedural strictness.

Subsequent Developments

• On May 22, 1995, petitioner filed the special civil action for certiorari along with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
• A TRO was issued on June 5, 1995, enjoining the respondent judge from enforcing the impugned Order pending the resolution of the case.

Final Judicial Action

• Upon review, the Supreme Court analyzed both the conduct of the parties and the procedural steps involved, ultimately affirming the finding of direct contempt—although it found the penalty imposed to be excessively severe.
• The Supreme Court reduced the penalty to a fine of P200.00 only and ordered that the criminal cases be re-raffled to another branch of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Issue:

• Whether the petitioner's allegations regarding the issuance of subpoenas without prior notice violated any procedural norms and could justify a claim of irregularity in the court’s proceedings.
• Whether the petitioner’s assertions that the court and its procedures were subject to the control of the accused were sufficiently substantiated to warrant a claim of bias or manipulation of the judicial process.
• Whether such unsubstantiated allegations, particularly when expressed in a manner deemed disrespectful to the court and its officers, constitute direct contempt.
• Whether the trial court correctly imposed and quantified the penalty for direct contempt, meeting the need to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court without overstepping corrective measures.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)