Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47244)
Facts:
The case involves Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr. and Rodrigo Libarnes as petitioners against Judge Lauro Tapucar, the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City (Branch I), and Eduardo Curato as the private respondent. The events leading to the case began with an order issued by Judge Tapucar on January 31, 1977, which barred Calo from presenting rebuttal evidence in a civil case concerning accounting, citing a waiver. Calo filed a motion on February 3, 1977, to set aside this order, expressing his grievance against the judge's decision, which he deemed unfair and contrary to the principles of justice. The judge reprimanded Calo for his language in the motion, leading to further motions and hearings. On March 24, 1977, Calo filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the plaintiff had the right to present evidence and that his previous statements were merely expressions of this right. Despite the judge initially allowing Calo to file ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47244)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
Petitioner Tranquilino O. Calo, Jr., counsel for co-petitioner Rodrigo Libarnes (plaintiff in a civil case), felt aggrieved by an order dated January 31, 1977, issued by respondent Judge Lauro Tapucar. The order precluded Calo from presenting rebuttal evidence on a question of accounting, citing waiver as the reason.Motion to Set Aside the Order:
On February 3, 1977, Calo filed a motion to set aside the order, alleging that the court's action was "obnoxious to the principles of the New Society" and "abhorrent to the elementary principles of fair play." This led to a reprimand from the judge on February 14, 1977.Motion for Reconsideration:
Calo filed a motion for reconsideration on March 24, 1977, arguing that his statements were not contemptuous but an exercise of his right to denounce unfair judicial acts. He emphasized that his remarks were made in a formal pleading, not in public, and were intended to give the court an opportunity to correct itself.Subsequent Proceedings:
On July 8, 1977, the judge allowed Calo to file a memorandum on the accounting, including rebuttal evidence. However, during a hearing on October 17, 1977, the judge unexpectedly declared Calo in direct contempt of court and suspended him from practicing law, citing the earlier derogatory language in his pleadings.Written Order of Suspension:
On October 24, 1977, the judge issued a written order confirming Calo's suspension and directing the cancellation of all his scheduled cases unless proper substitution of counsel was made.Supreme Court Intervention:
The Supreme Court issued a restraining order on December 7, 1977, suspending the effects of Calo's suspension until further orders.
Issue:
- Whether petitioner Calo, Jr. committed direct contempt of court by using intemperate and derogatory language in his pleadings.
- Whether the punishment of suspension from the practice of law was disproportionate to the offense.
- Whether the order of July 8, 1977, which denied petitioner Libarnes the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence, should be nullified.
Ruling:
Direct Contempt:
The Supreme Court held that petitioner Calo, Jr. committed direct contempt by using offensive and disrespectful language in his pleadings. However, the punishment of suspension was deemed disproportionate to the offense.Disproportionate Punishment:
The Court ruled that the suspension of Calo from October 17, 1977, to December 7, 1977, was sufficient punishment for his contemptuous conduct. The suspension was lifted, and no further penalties were imposed.Nullification of the July 8, 1977 Order:
The Court nullified the July 8, 1977, order to allow petitioner Libarnes to present his rebuttal evidence, ensuring regularity of procedure and avoiding due process concerns.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)