Case Digest (G.R. No. 184487)
Facts:
Hon. Medel Arnaldo B. Belen v. Josef Albert S. Comilang, G.R. No. 184487, February 27, 2013, the Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 45 sought to annul the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated July 3, 2008 and its Resolution dated August 27, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 101081, which found petitioner Judge Belen guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a fine of P30,000.00.Respondent State Prosecutor Josef Albert Comilang (State Prosecutor Comilang) had been designated to assist the City Prosecutor of Calamba. After explaining scheduling conflicts due to his inquest duties, he moved in February 2005 to defer hearings set before Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen (Judge Belen). Instead of granting the motion, Judge Belen issued orders (February 24 and May 30, 2005) requiring explanations and imposing postponement fees, and ultimately rendered a Decision dated December 12, 2005 finding Comilang in contempt and imposing a P20,000.00 penalty; a supersedeas bond was later fixed at P20,000.00 to stay execution.
Comilang filed a certiorari/prohibition petition with the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94069, securing a temporary restraining order on April 24, 2006 which was later extended by writ of preliminary injunction enjoining Judge Belen from executing or enforcing the May 30, 2005 Order and the December 12, 2005 Decision. Notwithstanding the CA’s injunctive writ, Judge Belen issued show-cause orders in September 2007 directing Comilang to explain his failure to post the supersedeas bond and to answer subpoenas; subsequent Orders (October 1 and October 8, 2007) found Comilang guilty of indirect contempt for failure to obey subpoenas and ordered fines and imprisonment.
Comilang filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and simultaneously filed the petition to cite Judge Belen for contempt in the CA (the present CA-G.R. SP No. 101081). The CA, by Decision of July 3, 2008, found Judge Belen guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. On October 18, 2007 Comilang lodged administrative charges; the OCA later, in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, found Judge Belen guilty of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law and, on June 26, 2012, ordered his dismissal from service.
Judge Belen petitioned the Supreme Court by Rule 45, arguing chiefly that the CA violated his right to due process by ruling on the contempt petition despite his ha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Belen’s administrative dismissal in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 bar judicial review of his conviction for indirect contempt in CA-G.R. SP No. 101081?
- Did the Court of Appeals violate Judge Belen’s right to due process by deciding the contempt petition despite his having filed a Comment?
- On the merits, did Judge Belen’s issuance of show-cause orders, subpoenas, and contempt findings, in the face of the CA’s injunctive writ, constitute indirect contempt under Sections 3 and 4 of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)