SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2421-RTJ. January 7, 2013.]
ULPIANO PATRON, complainant, vs. JUDGE GERARDO A. PAGUIO, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 January 2013 which reads as follows:
A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 06-2421-RTJ (ULPIANO PATRON v. JUDGE GERARDO A. PAGUIO, JR.)
Contempt of court is the despising of the authority, justice or dignity of the court. 1 Persons guilty of any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice may be punished for indirect contempt. 2
On 8 June 2005, complainant Ulpiano Patron filed against Charlie Fabre and Lazaro Mantujac, Jr. a complaint for damages which was docketed as Civil Case No. 13799 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 40, Dumaguete City, presided by respondent Judge Gerardo A.Paguio, Jr. 3 On the ground that he was jobless and owned no properties, Patron filed a motion to litigate as pauper 4 and, in support thereof, submitted certifications issued by the Dumaguete City Assessor and the Negros Oriental Provincial Assessor to the effect that he is not a declared owner of any real property in the locality. 5 On 23 June 2005, Judge Paguio issued an order denying Patron's motion in view of his failure to comply with the twin-affidavit requirement prescribed under Sec. 19, Rule 141, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. 6 Acting on Patron's motion for reconsideration of the foregoing order, 7 Judge Paguio issued an Order dated 19 August 2005 alternatively directing compliance with the aforesaid requirement or payment of the docket fees within 15 days from notice. 8 aCcEHS
On 2 September 2005, Patron moved for the inhibition of Judge Paguio on the ground that he already filed a complaint against the latter before the Office of the Ombudsman, for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 3019. 9 On 10 October 2005, Judge Paguio issued an order directing Patron to show cause why he should not be held liable for indirect contempt for filing a motion to litigate as pauper litigant despite the fact, among other matters, that he appeared to be the declared owner of at least three real properties in Valencia, Negros Oriental and that he was the heir of Teofila and Felicisima Patron who had various landholdings in said municipality and in Dumaguete City. 10 On 17 October 2005, however, Patron filed a second motion for inhibition, arguing that the show cause order was illegal and constituted abuse of power in view of the fact that his complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman had already been indorsed to this Court. 11 On 27 October 2005, Judge Paguio consequently issued an order inhibiting himself from the case and resolving the contempt charge against Patron. 12
Indorsed to this Court on 16 November 2005, 13 the complaint Patron filed before the Office of the Ombudsman 14 was not given due course for non-compliance with Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC. 15 On 9 December 2009, Patron consequently filed a verified complaint once again charging Judge Paguio with violation of RA 3019. In support of the complaint, Patron alleged that he suffered damage and prejudice in view of Judge Paguio's denial of his motion to litigate as pauper litigant despite the supposed recommendation of the Clerk of Court and the certifications issued by the Dumaguete City Assessor and the Negros Oriental Provincial Assessor. 16 In his Comment dated 6 March 2006, on the other hand, Judge Paguio averred, among other matters, that Patron was given a chance to rectify the defects of his motion in the Order dated 19 August 2005. Contrary to Patron's claim of not owning any property, moreover, Judge Paguio maintained that the former either owned or had interest in at least twelve parcels of land in Valencia, Negros Oriental. 17
On 20 September 2006, the Court issued a resolution 18 adopting the following recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA): (a) the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Paguio on the ground that the denial of Patron's motion to litigate as pauper litigant is judicial in nature and can only be questioned through the remedies provided under the Rules of Court; and (b) the issuance of a show cause order requiring Patron to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for attempting to mislead the Court into believing that his motion to litigate as pauper litigant had been approved by the Clerk of Court and that neither him nor his family owned and/or had interest in real properties. 19 Patron's motion for reconsideration of the foregoing resolution 20 was denied with finality for lack of substantial merit in the Court's 15 January 2007 Resolution which likewise reiterated the show cause order earlier issued. 21 In view of his failure and/or refusal to comply with the Court's directive, Patron was repeatedly fined and directed to comply with the show cause order. 22
Declared in contempt of court, ordered arrested and imposed a fine pursuant to the Resolution dated 11 April 2012 in view of his persistent non-compliance with the show cause order, 23 Patron eventually filed his explanation dated 10 May 2012. Insisting that he is not gainfully employed and has no stable source of income, Patron claims that the parcels of land declared in his name for taxation purposes were still owned by the government, hence, he cannot claim ownership over the same and had yet to apply for the issuance of titles therefor. While conceding that he sold his rights and interests over a parcel of land in 2001 after being hospitalized for various ailments, Patron alleges that the proceeds of the sale had long been exhausted and that he had, since then, been destitute. Already of "frail health" and "in the sunset of his life", Patron expresses deep regrets for filing the case against Judge Paguio and sincerely apologizes for all the inconvenience he has caused. 24
Patron's explanation fails to persuade.
Our perusal of the record shows that, in the tax declarations filed in connection with the three lots situated in Valencia, Negros Oriental which are denominated as Cadastral Lot Nos. 7745, 7533 and 5086, Cad. 903, Patron identified himself as the owner. 25 Patron's claim that said parcels of land are not owned by him as he has yet to apply for the issuance of certificates of title over the same is, therefore, as hollow as it is disingenuous. In support of his mendacious assertion, Patron even procured a certification from the Office of the City Assessor of Dumaguete City to the effect that he was not the declared owner of any property in the city. 26 In obtaining said certification in Dumaguete City where he appeared to have no properties, however, Patron clearly attempted to conceal the three parcels of land in Valencia which, as owner, he declared for taxation purposes in his name. Notwithstanding the 8 June 1985 certification he procured to the effect that he was not a declared owner of any property in the province, 27 the 28 September 2005 certification subsequently issued by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of Negros Oriental significantly affirmed Patron's professed ownership of said three parcels in Valencia. 28 HCacTI
Given that he identified himself as the owner of the Valencia properties in Tax Declaration Nos. 99-20-013-00259, 99-20-013-00367 and 2003-18-021-01216, Patron was clearly misleading this Court when he asserted in his 13 March 2006 Reply to Judge Paguio's Comment that he was merely renting said properties. 29 The indefensibility of Patron's position is cast in even greater relief when it is borne in mind that he is also a co-owner of the 2,503 square meter property in Valencia which was registered in the name of the Heirs of Teofila Patron, represented by Felicisima V. Patron under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. FV-35905 of the Negros Oriental provincial registry. 30 In the 21 April 2005 petition for issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. FV-35905 which was filed at his own instance, Patron quite distinctly averred that he was a co-owner of the property as an heir of Teofila and Felicisima Patron. 31 Without even going into the fact that his said predecessors-in-interest further owned properties 32 of which he would presumably also be a co-owner, it is evident that Patron has submitted false statements to this Court.
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses during court litigation. 33 A contumacious conduct implies willfulness, bad faith or deliberate intent to cause injustice 34 which, by the facts attendant of the case, Patron has unquestionably evinced. In falsely claiming that he had no properties, Patron evidently intended to have this Court believe that Judge Paguio unjustifiably denied his motion to litigate as pauper litigant and, worse, to have the latter penalized for a malfeasance he did not commit. Patron even deceptively claimed that his said motion was favorably recommended by the RTC Clerk of Court and altogether omitted the fact that, at the time of the filing of his 9 December 2005 verified complaint, Judge Paguio already issued the 19 August 2005 Order which reconsidered the earlier denial of his motion and directed him to comply with the requirements therefor. 35
If counsels can be held in contempt of court for making false statements in the pleadings they file tending to mislead the Court and to degrade the administration of justice, 36 it stands to reason that a litigant representing himself can be equally punished for similar acts. While it is true that the settled rule is to the effect that the power to punish contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment, 37 we cannot simply close our eyes to the deleterious effects of concocted administrative complaints against judges on the administration of justice before lower courts and, ultimately, this Court. That Patron's charges against Judge Paguio stemmed from his desire to evade payment of filing fees should not, likewise, pass without comment. Since filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of cases in terms of costs of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, and others, computed as to man-hours used in the handling of each case, 38 any attempt to evade payment thereof by deceitful means deserves censure.
In insisting that he does not own properties despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we find Patron, on the whole, stubbornly unrepentant and insincere with his apology. Despite his plea for clemency, we consequently find him liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3 (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which penalizes any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Under Section 7 of the same Rule, a person adjudged guilty of indirect contempt against an RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank may be punished by a fine not exceeding P30,000.00 or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. Given that Patron had already been arrested, detained and fined for his obstinate disregard of the Court's show cause order, We find the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 reasonable under the circumstances. ADCETI
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We find Ulpiano Patron GUILTY of indirect contempt under Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and impose on him a Fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Company, Incorporated v. Valdez, G.R. No. 150108, 28 January 2008, 542 SCRA 455, 467.
2.Racines v. Morallos, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1698, 3 March 2008, 547 SCRA 295, 299.
3.Patron's 3 June 2005 Complaint, records, pp. 27-28.
4.Patron's 7 June 2005 Motion to Litigate as Pauper, id. at 29.
5.7 June 2005 Certifications issued by the Offices of the Dumaguete City Assessor and Negros Oriental Provincial Assessor, id. at 30-31.
6.Judge Paguio's 23 June 2005 Order, id. at 33-34.
7.Patron's 29 June 2005 Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 35-36.
8.Judge Paguio's 19 August 2005 Order, id. at 41.
9.Patron's 2 September 2005 Motion to Inhibit, id. at 42-43.
10.Judge Paguio's 10 October 2005 Show Cause Order, id. at 50-51.
11.Patron's 17 October 2005 Second Motion for Inhibition, id. at 52.
12.Judge Paguio's 27 October 2005 Order, id. at 54.
13.Office of the Ombudsman's 8 November 2005 Indorsement, id. at 8.
14.Judge Paguio's 27 October 2005 Order, id. at 54.
15.OCA's 8 November 2008 Letter, id. at 7.
16.Patron's 9 December 2005 Complaint, id. at 1-2.
17.Judge Paguio's 6 March 2006 Comment, id. at 15-26.
18.20 September 2006 Letter, id. at 85.
19.OCA's 25 July 2006 Report and Recommendation, id. at 81-84.
20.Patron's 13 November 2005 Motion for Reconsideration, id. at 86.
21.15 January 2007 Resolution, id. at 90.
22.5 December 2007, 2 June 2008, 13 July 2009, 17 March 2010, 6 July 2011 Resolutions, id. at 96-100 and 105-108.
23.11 April 2012 Resolution, id. at 111-114.
24.Patron's 10 May 2012 Explanation, id. at 133-134.
25.Tax Declaration Nos. 99-20-013-00259, 99-20-013-00367 and 2003-18-021-01216, id. at 63-65.
26.7 June 2005 Certification, id. at 39.
27.8 June 2005 Certification, id. at 40.
28.28 September 2005 Certification, id. at 62.
29.Patron's 13 March 2006, id. at 78.
30.OCT No. FV-35905, id. at 60-61.
31.21 April 2005 Petition, id. at 51-59.
32.Tax Declaration Nos. 99-20-021-00409, 99-20-021-00364, 99-20-021-00671 and 93-029-1848, id. at 67-70.
33.Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Br. 121, Caloocan City in Crim. Cases Q-97-6955-56 for Child Abuse, A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC, 31 January 2008, 543 SCRA 196, 212 citing Barredo-Fuentes v. Judge Albaraccin, 496 Phil. 31, 41 (2005).
34.In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, 529 Phil. 619, 625 (2006).
35.Records, p. 41.
36.Francisco, Jr. v. UEM-Mara Philippines Corporation, G.R. Nos. 135688-89, 18 October 2007, 536 SCRA 518, 534-535.
37.Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 150746, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 106, 118.
38.Suson v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 820, 825 (1997) citing Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 253 Phil. 660, 667 (1989).