G.R. No. 184487 - Belen vs. Comilang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184487)

Factual Background

JOSEF ALBERT S. COMILANG, by virtue of ORSP Order No. 05-07 dated February 7, 2005, was designated to assist the City Prosecutor of Calamba City and stated his inability to appear on Thursdays because of inquest duties. On February 21, 2005 he moved to defer hearings set for February 24, 2005. Instead of deferring, HON. MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN issued a February 24, 2005 order in Criminal Case No. 12654-2003-C requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his failure to inform the court of a previously scheduled preliminary investigation and to pay a P500.00 fine for cancellation of hearings. Subsequent orders followed, including a May 30, 2005 order directing explanation and payment of a postponement fee of P1,200.00 for twelve postponed cases. A December 12, 2005 decision of Judge Belen found State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of contempt and imposed a P20,000.00 penalty.

Early Appellate and Injunctive Proceedings

On April 12, 2006 State Prosecutor Comilang filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 94069 challenging Judge Belen’s May 30, 2005 order and December 12, 2005 decision. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order on April 24, 2006 and later a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the execution and enforcement of the challenged RTC issuances during the pendency of the petition.

Subsequent RTC Orders and Contempt Citations

Notwithstanding the injunctive writ, Judge Belen issued a September 6, 2007 order requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his alleged refusal to post a supersedeas bond and to appear on September 26, 2007. State Prosecutor Comilang invoked the Court of Appeals’ injunctive writ and waived appearance. Judge Belen nevertheless issued a September 26, 2007 order directing explanation for alleged defiance of subpoena and ordered subpoenas for hearings on October 1 and October 8, 2007. On October 1, 2007 Judge Belen denied a motion to quash the subpoenas, found State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of indirect contempt for failure to obey a duly served subpoena, imposed a fine of P30,000.00 and two days imprisonment, and required a supersedeas bond of P30,000.00 to stay execution of the December 12, 2005 decision.

Administrative Complaint and Parallel Proceedings

On October 18, 2007 State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator alleging manifest partiality, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law by Judge Belen in issuing the show cause orders, subpoenas, and contempt citations in defiance of the Court of Appeals’ injunctive writ. This administrative action culminated in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, in which the administrative tribunal on June 26, 2012 found Judge Belen guilty of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law and dismissed him from the service.

Contempt Petition in the Court of Appeals

Simultaneously, State Prosecutor Comilang filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to cite Judge Belen in contempt, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101081, asserting that the September 6 and September 26, 2007 orders openly defied the injunctive writ issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 94069. On July 3, 2008 the Court of Appeals found Judge Belen guilty of indirect contempt for disobedience of lawful court orders under Section 3, Rule 71 and imposed a fine of P30,000.00; a motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated August 27, 2008.

Petitioner’s Contentions in the Supreme Court

In the Supreme Court petition under Rule 45, Judge Belen contended that he was deprived of due process because the Court of Appeals resolved the contempt petition without considering his Comment. He further argued that he had no intent to disrespect the Court of Appeals’ authority and had merely misinterpreted the injunctive writ as restraining enforcement and execution of the May 30, 2005 order and December 12, 2005 decision, not as prohibiting him from seeking explanation regarding non-filing of a supersedeas bond.

The Supreme Court’s Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition in part and reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 3, 2008 and Resolution dated August 27, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 101081. The Court held that although the act by Judge Belen in issuing the September 2007 orders was contemptuous and defeated the status quo preserved by the writ of preliminary injunction, the contempt conviction was procedurally defective because Judge Belen was not afforded the opportunity to rebut the charges.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that proceedings for indirect contempt require compliance with Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, namely: (1) an order requiring the respondent to show cause; (2) an opportunity for the respondent to comment on the charge; and (3) a hearing in which the court investigates the charge and considers the respondent’s answer. The third requisite embodies the right to due process and is of paramount importance. The records demonstrated that Judge Belen’s Comment was filed on January 29, 2008 and was lodged in the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. 101081, yet the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution on February 15, 2008 treating the petition as submitted for decision for lack of comment and later rendered judgment on July 3, 2008 without consi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 184487)

Parties and Posture

HON. MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN was the petitioner in his official capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City.
JOSEF ALBERT S. COMILANG was the respondent and State Prosecutor who sought contempt proceedings before the Court of Appeals.
The petitioner moved by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court to reverse the Court of Appeals Decision dated July 3, 2008 and its Resolution dated August 27, 2008.
The Court of Appeals had found Judge Belen guilty of indirect contempt and imposed a fine of P30,000.00.
A parallel administrative case was filed as A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, which resulted in a June 26, 2012 decision dismissing Judge Belen from service.

Key Facts

State Prosecutor Comilang was assigned to assist the Office of the City Prosecutor of Calamba City by ORSP Order No. 05-07 dated February 7, 2005.
State Prosecutor Comilang informed Judge Belen on February 16, 2005 of his inability to appear on Thursdays due to inquest duties and moved on February 21, 2005 to defer hearings scheduled for February 24, 2005.
Judge Belen issued a February 24, 2005 Order in Criminal Case No. 12654-2003-C requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his failure to inform the court and to pay a P500.00 fine for cancellation of hearings.
Judge Belen issued a May 30, 2005 Order directing State Prosecutor Comilang to explain alleged unsubstantiated charges in his motion and to pay a postponement fee of P1,200.00 for twelve postponed matters.
Judge Belen rendered a Decision dated December 12, 2005 finding State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of contempt and imposing a P20,000.00 penalty, which remained executory subject to a posted supersedeas bond.
State Prosecutor Comilang filed CA-G.R. SP No. 94069 on April 12, 2006 and the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order dated April 24, 2006 and later a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the May 30, 2005 Order and December 12, 2005 Decision.
Despite the injunctive writ, Judge Belen issued orders dated September 6 and September 26, 2007 requiring explanations and caused issuance of subpoenas related to contempt and supersedeas bond nonfiling.
Judge Belen issued an October 1, 2007 Order finding State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of indirect contempt, imposing P30,000.00 fine and two days imprisonment, and requiring a P30,000.00 supersedeas bond to stay execution.
State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Court Administrator on October 18, 2007, alleging manifest partiality, malice, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law by Judge Belen.

Procedural History

State Prosecutor Comilang filed a petition to cite Judge Belen in contempt before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 101081.
The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution on February 15, 2008 stating the petition was submitted for decision because no comment was filed.
The record contained a Comment of Judge Belen filed on January 29, 2008 as shown by Registry Receipt No. 140, Calamba Post Office, and as certified by the CA Clerk of Court.
The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dated July 3, 2008 finding Judge Belen guilty of indirect contempt and later denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated August 27, 2008.
Judge Belen timely filed a Rule 45 petition in the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution in G.R. No. 184487.
The Supreme Court resolved the related administrative complaint as A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 on June 26, 2012 by dismissing Judge Belen from service.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeals deprived Judge Belen of due process by