Case Summary (G.R. No. 159747)
Facts underlying the contempt motion
At oral argument on November 18, 2003, the parties agreed and the Court recorded that the Department of Justice, with assurance from the Chief State Prosecutor, would maintain the status quo while the petition was pending. The DOJ Panel deferred investigation while the jurisdictional issue was litigated. After the Supreme Court’s April 13 decision upholding the Panel’s jurisdiction, the Panel issued an order on April 23 directing petitioner to file his counter‑affidavit and controverting evidence within a specified short period. Petitioner contended that the Panel’s order contravened the status‑quo agreement and sought to pre‑empt his right to file a timely motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision.
Petitioner’s arguments in support of contempt citation
Petitioner argued that (1) he still had the 15‑day reglementary period to file a motion for reconsideration after receipt of the Court’s decision (thus the April 13 decision was not yet final and executory), (2) the DOJ Panel’s order prematurely compelled him to submit a counter‑affidavit and thereby rendered any motion for reconsideration futile, (3) forcing submission would upset the agreed status quo and impair his due‑process rights, and (4) the DOJ Panel’s order demonstrated contempt and defiance of the Court’s authority and amounted to a form of “railroading” of the preliminary investigation and detention.
Respondents’ contentions opposing contempt citation
Respondents maintained that contempt requires a contumacious, willful attitude and virtual defiance of the Court; no such intent existed. They explained that the April 23 order was issued in good faith after receipt of the Supreme Court decision that confirmed their jurisdiction, was intended to vindicate petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition and to afford him full opportunity to contest the accusations, and was part of the conscientious exercise of their constitutional and statutory duty to conduct preliminary investigations. Respondents further emphasized that in contempt proceedings intent is central and that doubts should be resolved in favor of the alleged contemnor; only clear, contumacious refusal warrants punishment.
Legal standards on contempt applied by the Court
The Court summarized the settled definition and limits of contempt as: disobedience to the court that acts contrary to its authority and dignity, not merely any procedural misstep but conduct tending to bring the judiciary into disrepute or impeding the administration of justice. The Court reiterated that the power to punish for contempt is drastic and extraordinary, should be used preservatively rather than vindictively, and should be invoked only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey. The Court cited authorities to that effect, including the Annotation on Contempt of Court, Nazareno v. Barnes, and Gamboa v. Teodoro.
Court’s analysis and factual findings
The Court found that the DOJ Panel had complied with the November 18, 2003 agreement to suspend further proceedings while the petition was pending and only issued the assailed order after receipt of the Supreme Court’s April 13, 2004 decision upholding its jurisdiction. The Court accepted the Panel’s explanation that the order was prompted by the desire to resolve a preliminary investigation filed in August 2003 that had been held in abeyance because of the pending jurisdictional question. The Court concluded that there was no demonstrable contumacious intent to flout the Supreme Court, impede justice, or arrogate judicial authority; rather, the Panel sought to afford petitioner an opportunity to be heard and to effect a speedy disposition consistent with due process.
Finality of the Supreme Court decision and petitioner’s compliance
Although petitioner asserted receipt of the decision on April 22, 2004 and a motion
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159747)
Case Caption and Court Details
- Reported at 476 Phil. 127, EN BANC, G.R. No. 159747, dated June 15, 2004.
- Title: SENATOR GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, PETITIONER, VS. THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (LEO DACERA, SUSAN F. DACANAY, EDNA A. VALENZUELA AND SEBASTIAN F. CAPONONG, JR.), CIDG-PNP-P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, AND THE HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, RESPONDENTS.
- Opinion authored by Justice Austria-Martinez, J., with the Court resolving a motion to cite the respondent DOJ Panel of Investigating Prosecutors in contempt of court.
- Concurrences: Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
- Notations: Vitug, J., on official leave; Yañares-Santiago, J., on leave.
Nature of Petition and Relief Sought
- Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction.
- The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent Panel for assuming jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation on the charge of coup d'etat against petitioner.
- The present motion before the Court sought to cite the respondent Panel in contempt for alleged blatant disregard and defiance of the parties' agreement with the Court to maintain the status quo.
Procedural History Leading to the Motion for Contempt
- September 22, 2003: Petitioner filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for injunctive relief.
- Respondents filed their respective comments; petitioner filed a reply to respondents' comments.
- November 18, 2003: An oral argument was held before the Court.
- Parties submitted their respective memoranda as required by the Court.
- April 13, 2004: The Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition and upholding the concurrent jurisdiction of the respondent Panel to conduct the preliminary investigation.
- April 22, 2004: Petitioner received a copy of the Court's decision; the source text indicates petitioner then had until May 7, 2004 to file a motion for reconsideration.
- April 23, 2004: Respondent Panel issued the assailed order directing respondents through counsel to file counter-affidavits and controverting evidence by May 3, 2004.
- Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to cite respondent in contempt of court, alleging the April 23, 2004 order violated the status quo agreement.
The Parties' Express Agreement Regarding the Status Quo
- The Court's Resolution dated November 18, 2003 expressly provided: "Further, it was agreed that the Department of Justice, with the assurance of the Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. ZuAo, will maintain the STATUS QUO before the filing of the petition."
- Petitioner contends this agreement obliged respondents to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation while the petition was pending before the Court.
Assailed Order of the Respondent Panel (April 23, 2004)
- The respondent Panel's assailed order stated in part:
- "In the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 159747 dated 13 April 2004, confirming that this Investigating Panel has jurisdiction to investigate the instant complaint against respondent Senator Gregorio B. Honasan II, et al., and to afford respondent full opportunity to controvert the allegations of the complaint and to adduce evidence;
- Wherefore, in the interest of justice, respondent(s) thru counsel are hereby given a final extension of up to 3 May 2004 within which to file their counter-affidavit and controverting evidence furnishing with a copy thereof complainant with proof of service thereof to this Panel."
Petitioner's Contentions in the Motion to Cite for Contempt
- Petitioner argued the assailed order was in direct contravention and flagrant violation of the parties' agreement in the Court's November 18, 2003 Resolution to maintain the status quo.
- Petitioner asserted he still had 15 days from receipt of the Court's decision (i.e., until May 7, 2004) to file a motion for reconsideration, so the April 13, 2004 decision was not yet final and executory as of April 23, 2004.
- Petitioner asserted his intention to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.
- Petitioner maintained the assailed order requiring the filing of his counter-affidavit was premature and intended to pre-empt, render futile, and subvert his actions relative to the Court's decision dated April 13, 2004, thereby subverting his right to due process.
- Petitioner argued the Court's April 13, 2004 decision had not lifted the directives to maintain the status quo nor did it automatically lift the status quo order.
- Petitioner contended that submission of his counter-affidavit would upset the status qu