Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175)
Facts:
Venancio Inonog v. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, July 28, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Venancio P. Inonog (the security driver of the Chief of the Business Permit Division, Makati City) filed a Sworn Statement with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on April 26, 2005, charging Judge Francisco B. Ibay, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, Makati City (respondent), with grave abuse of authority for citing him in contempt for parking his superior’s vehicle in a basement slot at Makati City Hall allegedly reserved for the judge.
On March 18, 2005 respondent issued an order directing Inonog to appear at 10:30 a.m. the same day to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in connection with several criminal cases scheduled for promulgation that morning; later that day respondent issued another order finding Inonog guilty of indirect contempt for allegedly delaying the administration of justice, sentenced him to five days imprisonment and a P1,000 fine, and ordered his arrest. Inonog arrived at the courthouse only around 1:00 p.m., after having left the vehicle because he felt ill; he was informed he had already been adjudged guilty and that an arrest warrant had issued.
Inonog filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on March 21, 2005, and an Amended Urgent Motion attaching proof of payment of the P1,000 fine; respondent denied relief on March 30, 2005, deleted the imprisonment sentence but increased the fine to P2,000. Complainant paid the additional P1,000 and then filed the administrative complaint with the OCA.
Respondent explained he arrived at court early to finalize decisions scheduled for promulgation and that his parking slot bore his name; he maintained that Inonog disobeyed orders to appear and that he afforded the latter opportunity to be heard. The OCA evaluated the matter on November 15, 2005, concluded that the act was too trifling to support an indirect contempt proceeding and that Inonog was not afforded reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard per Rule 71, Sec. 3, and recommended the matter be redocketed as an administrative case and that respondent be fined P5,000 with warning.
The Court, acting on the OCA report and recommendations in the administrative proceeding docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, reviewed the record, noted respondent’s prior similar di...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent’s issuance of orders citing and convicting Inonog for indirect contempt comply with the procedural requisites of Rule 71, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court?
- Did respondent commit grave abuse of authority in the exercise of his contempt powers by citing and punishing Inonog for parking in the allegedly reserved slot?
- If guilty, what discip...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)