Case Digest (G.R. No. 170404)
Facts:
Ferdinand A. Cruz v. Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon, G.R. No. 170404, September 28, 2011, First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz sued his neighbor Benjamin Mina, Jr. in Civil Case No. 01-0401 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 117, Pasay City, for abatement of nuisance to remove a basketball goal that protruded into a public alley. Mina was declared in default and petitioner presented evidence ex parte. In a Decision dated October 21, 2005, Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon declared the basketball goal a public nuisance but dismissed the case for lack of locus standi, citing Article 701 of the Civil Code; the Decision also contained lengthy descriptive observations about the living conditions in the area.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration taking particular exception to the Decision’s descriptive paragraphs and expressly accusing the trial judge of having communicated off the record with the defaulted defendant — an allegation he characterized as a fair inference from the Decision’s detailed description. In an Order dated November 11, 2005, Judge Gingoyon set the motion for hearing on November 18, 2005 (the date requested by petitioner) and directed petitioner to substantiate his charge or show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; the judge also denied petitioner’s allegation on the record.
When the case was called on November 18, 2005 petitioner did not appear; the judge motu proprio gave him an additional ten days to show cause. Petitioner thereafter filed a Compliance repeating his suspicion that the judge had communicated with the defendant but offering no factual proof. On November 25, 2005 Judge Gingoyon issued an Order finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct contempt — citing precedents — and sentenced him to two days’ imprisonment and a fine of P2,000.00; an arrest warrant issued the same day.
On December 1, 2005 petitioner filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Post Bond and Quash Warrant of Arrest in the respondent court, asserting that he had already filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court; the respondent court denied the Ex-Parte Motion because petitioner failed to attach proof of filing the certiorari petition. The record shows that petitioner actually filed the certiorari petition with the Supreme Court later that same day at 1:06 P.M., and the RTC only received a copy by registered mail on December 5, 2005. Judge Gingoyon was slain on December 31, 2005; the Supreme Court directed Judge Jesus B. Mupas, incumbent presiding judge of Branch 117, to comment on t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent court validly adjudge petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court?
- Was there sufficient factual basis for the respondent court to cite petitioner for contempt?
- Did the respondent court abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s Ex-Parte Motion to post bond and quash...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)