Agapito W. Mendez, et al. vs. Jesus B. Banal, et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 3154. August 21, 1987.] AGAPITO W. MENDEZ, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . JESUS B. BANAL, ET AL. , respondents . O R D E R This is an omnibus consideration of the incidents of Motion to Declare Petitioner Agapito Mendez, Jr., in Contempt and to Dismiss the Petition, petitioners' Motion to Declare Respondents in Contempt and Submit Case for Resolution, and Motion With Leave to Admit Amended Petition. For its part, respondents, in its Motion to Declare Petitioner Mendez, Jr., in Contempt and to Dismiss the Petition, is seeking to declare/adjudge petitioner Agapito Mendez, Jr. in contempt and dismissal of the case on jurisdictional issue and/or for being premature, alleging, among others, that petitioner published or caused to be published in newspapers of general circulation news items which are the very issues on matters pending final adjudication of the ancillary incident on injunction and the principal case before this Commission; complemented by a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition is premature claiming that the instant is an election protest which should first be resolved by the ICBAP Board of Judges whose decision on the matter shall be final. Petitioner on the other hand presented its Motion to Cite Respondents in Contempt and Submit the Case for Decision laying stress on the fact that notwithstanding the Restraining Order dated April 3, 1987 of the Commission and receipt thereof by the respondents, the latter committed various acts violative and in defiance of said Order, as shown in Annexes "A", "A-1", and "A-1-2", "B", "B-1", "B-2" and "B-3", "C" and "D" of the aforesaid Motion. In its Opposition to Motions to Dismiss Petition, To Declare Petitioner Mendez, Jr. in Contempt, petitioner took stand in claiming jurisdiction of the Commission over the subject controversy laying as basis provision of Sec. 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended by P.D. No. 1653 and the contrasting and academic position of the respondents while presenting a motion to declare petitioner Mendez, Jr. in contempt when they adhered jurisdiction/authority of the Commission itself. In the meanwhile, a Motion with Leave to Admit Amended Petition was filed by petitioner infusing matters not included in the original petition which, however, does not substantially alter original cause/s of actions and with leave of the Commission considering that respondents pleading has already been filed. The Commission, having read the pleadings and supporting documents on file, now enters its findings relative to this instant incidents. The rule of contempt, by reason of publications relating court and to court proceedings is that the publication must tend to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in the administration of justice pending suit or proceedings. In the language of the Supreme Court, what is sought, in this kind of contempt, is the all important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. (IN RE: Lozano and Quevedo (54 Phil. 801). From the above enunciated ruling, the question is therefore whether the publications referred to by the parties had impeded, obstructed, embarrassed or influenced the Commission in the disposition of the issues involved in the instant action. TCacIA On the basis of these setting, we hold that the subject publications relating to court proceedings in a pending suit is not contumacious per se unless publication thereof is expressly prohibited by law. The evidence introduced in the instant incidents in behalf of both parties leaves the evidence to sustain contempt action substantially unmet coupled with the direct and concrete proof that the questioned publications are indeed contumacious tending to obstruct, impede or influence the Commission in the administration of justice pending suit or proceeding. With respect to the conclusion reached by the respondents-movants in its Motion to Dismiss on jurisdictional matter alleging, among others that the instant petition is premature and therefore, the jurisdiction of this Commission suffers from incurable infirmity pursuant to Section 1 (c) of Article XI of ICBAP By Laws, we prefer to rest our findings that the instant action is for nullification of election generally classified as a quo warranto action contrary to respondents' stand that the same is an election protest considering that this is a contest in behalf of one who has failed in an election against the right of one declared a winner, complemented by the fact that petitioners filed the action in their capacity as members of the Association and not as a contending party to the questioned March 12, 1987 election. In the same manner, this Commission is not inclined to sustain that respondents have violated the Restraining Order to hold them in contempt. The alleged act of respondents in attending the meeting of the Philippine Ports Authority on April 22, 1987, including their act of filling-up the registration sheets stating therein their respective official designations in the Association cannot be directly imputed so as to constitute an exercise of their official function as alleged officers of the Association, as well as the alleged attendance in the National Convention of Philippine Federation of Professional Association (PFPA) on April 11, 1987 by respondents Banal, Colico, Leabres, Garcia and Bongalos, in the absence of direct and concrete proofs to show otherwise. We are not likewise agreed on the contention that the oath-taking ceremony of the new customs brokers on April 13, 1987 and the alleged representation of respondents as officers of the Association as shown in the "countless printed invitations" is an exercise of the principal function of the respondents as officers of the Association, as against the facts borne out in the instant case that will readily show that said affair is primarily a principal official undertaking of the Professional Regulation Commission, not of the respondents as averred by the petitioners. The same does not justify a contrary stand against the respondents. Accordingly, it is not therefore necessary to thresh out the remaining grounds relied upon by petitioners-movant. With these substantial considerations, we find no just alternative to sustain respondents' Motion to Declare Petitioner Mendez, Jr., in Contempt and to Dismiss the Petition, as well as petitioners' motion to cite respondents in contempt. WHEREFORE, motion to declare petitioner Mendez, Jr. in contempt and to dismiss petition of the respondents, as well as petitioners' motion to cite respondents in contempt, are, as it is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Motion for Leave to Amend Petition of herein petitioners is hereby ADMITTED. Let continuation of the hearing on the incident of injunction be, as it is hereby set on September 7 and 8, 1987, both at 9:00 o'clock in the morning. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) NAPOLEON M. TUMAMAO Hearing Officer