Facts:

The case involves Paquito G. Balasabas, a practicing lawyer, as the petitioner, and Hon. Gregorio U. Aquilizan, then the judge of the Court of Agrarian Relations in Cotabato City, as the respondent. The events leading to the case began when Edgardo Medrocillo, represented by Balasabas, filed an agrarian case for unlawful ejectment against Jose Bandigan et al., which was later docketed as CAR Case No. 1912 in 1974. The court ruled in favor of Medrocillo, subsequently leading to an appeal by the defendants. On July 5, 1978, Medrocillo filed a motion for execution, which was opposed by the defendants. Respondent Judge Aquilizan granted the motion but required Medrocillo to submit an accounting of the copra sold.

Medrocillo failed to obey the court's orders, leading Judge Aquilizan to schedule a hearing to address potential contempt charges. On the appointed date, both Medrocillo and Balasabas failed to appear, prompting the judge to issue an arrest order for Medrocillo. A motio

...

Facts:

Overview of the Cases

• The instant matter involves two consolidated cases:
• G.R. No. 51414 – a petition for certiorari and prohibition raised by Attorney Paquito G. Balasabas.
• Administrative Case No. 2077 – proceedings concerning his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
• Both cases were taken up together by the Supreme Court following its Resolution dated October 5, 1979.

Chronology and Procedural Background

• Initial Order and Indirect Contempt Citation
• On August 27, 1979, respondent Judge Gregorio U. Aquilizan of the Court of Agrarian Relations, Davao City, issued an order citing Balasabas for indirect contempt under Section 3(b) of Rule 71, in connection with his alleged failure to comply with a pertinent resolution.
• The order imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law unless the petitioner submitted a satisfactory written explanation regarding his non-compliance with the court’s resolution dated June 19, 1979.
• Temporary Restraining Order
• On September 17, 1979, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order restraining Judge Aquilizan from enforcing his August 27, 1979 order and from acting upon the indirect contempt charge.
• Pertinent Agrarian Cases and Related Orders
• CAR Case No. 1912 (Edgardo Medrocillo vs. Jose Bandigan, et al.):
• Initiated on March 4, 1974, for unlawful ejectment and other claims involving an agricultural share tenancy dispute.

ii. After a trial and a decision on December 27, 1974 by CAR Judge Filomeno Gapultos, the decision was elevated and affirmed by the Court of Appeals on July 28, 1976. ii. Following a hearing, Judge Aquilizan issued a resolution on November 24, 1978 requiring Medrocillo to render an accounting of the proceeds from the copra produced. ii. On May 14, 1979, after a series of orders including a failure to appear and an order for arrest on May 21, 1979, respondent Judge Aquilizan sought to cite petitioner Balasabas for indirect contempt for allegedly abandoning Medrocillo’s cause without complying with the mandated procedures.

Allegations of Procedural Due Process Violations

• The petitioner, Balasabas, claimed that his constitutional and statutory rights were violated because:
• He did not receive adequate notice that he was to be tried that day for indirect contempt.
• He was not afforded a reasonable time and opportunity to submit a written explanation or present witnesses.
• The order, which summarily imposed an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, was issued without full observance of the procedural safeguards mandated by the Rules of Court.
• Additional factual assertions included:
• Balasabas argued that the only order received by his client related to a different hearing (the order of May 21, 1979), while he had not been provided with the other critical resolutions (i.e., November 24, 1978 and June 19, 1979), thereby undermining his opportunity to be heard.
• Despite an oral explanation given on the day of the scheduled hearing detailing personal and family emergencies, the respondent judge proceeded with imposing the sanctions without granting further opportunity for evidence or written explanation.

Consolidation of Cases and Disqualification Pleadings

• On June 18–22, 1979, additional pleadings and actions were filed in related CAR cases, including a motion to disqualify Judge Aquilizan from hearing CAR Case No. 3271.
• During the consolidated hearing on August 27, 1979:
• Lawyer Balasabas argued his motion for disqualification.
• In the same session, Judge Aquilizan issued the order citing him for indirect contempt and suspending him indefinitely from practicing law.
• The petitioner raised constitutional and statutory objections to the manner in which the order was issued, particularly alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of due process.

Issue:

• Whether the procedural due process rights of the petitioner were violated when he was cited for indirect contempt of court by not being given appropriate notice, a fair hearing, and a reasonable opportunity to present his explanation.
• Whether the indefinite suspension from the practice of law, imposed in the same order for alleged indirect contempt, falls within the authority of the court given the separate procedures mandated for contempt and for suspension of a lawyer.
• Whether the respondent judge acted with jurisdiction and proper fairness when he summarily imposed the penalties without allowing the petitioner an adequate opportunity to respond and present evidence.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)