FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 245399. April 26, 2021.]
CONG. CESAR V. SARMIENTO, petitioner,vs. HON. LELU CONTRERAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VIRAC, CATANDUANES, BRANCH 42, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 245399 (Cong. Cesar V. Sarmiento v. Hon. Lelu Contreras, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 42). — Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 2 dated August 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 155467.
Petitioner Cesar V. Sarmiento (Sarmiento), then Congressman of the Province of Catanduanes, claimed that he was conducting research and gathering information for his presentation in a legislative inquiry on illegal logging. Part of his research and resource materials is the case entitled People of the Philippines v. Marvin Soria y Sarmiento and Elmer Morauda III y Mirabuna docketed as Criminal Case No. 6531 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 42. The case involved the violation of Section 77 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 705, otherwise known as the "Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines." 4
On March 16, 2018, at the arraignment proceedings for the aforementioned case, both accused pleaded guilty to the offense charged. That same day, respondent Judge Lelu Contreras (Judge Contreras) rendered a decision finding both accused guilty. The accused were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of 1 year, 8 months and 21 days to 5 years, 5 months and 11 days after the RTC considered the presence of mitigating circumstances. 5
Judge Contreras claimed that, on March 20, 2018, Sarmiento made inquiries to the handling prosecutor of the criminal case on its expeditious termination as the case was filed, raffled and decided in a week's time. The judge also claimed that Sarmiento probed on the penalty imposed and the confiscation of the truck which was used to transport the illegal logs subject of the criminal case. Judge Contreras asserted that the handling prosecutor explained to Sarmiento that the immediate rendering of judgment and the computation of the penalty were in accordance with the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases 6 and Republic Act No. 1095. 7 Despite the explanations provided by the handling prosecutor, Judge Contreras learned that Sarmiento, in a radio broadcast, made malicious accusations about the judicial proceedings for the criminal case and suggested conducting an investigation on the same. 8
On April 4, 2018, Judge Contreras invited Sarmiento, through a text message, to her office to explain that the criminal case was decided in accordance with the law. She also stated in the same text message that the records to the case were open for Sarmiento's review. The text message was never acknowledged by Sarmiento. On the same day, Judge Contreras was surprised that Sarmiento, in another radio broadcast, made malicious and unfounded accusations on the expeditious proceedings and penalty imposed in the criminal case. 9 For this reason, on April 5, 2018, Judge Contreras issued a Show Cause Order 10 against Sarmiento, viz.: CAIHTE
xxx xxx xxx
ORDER
Although this case has already been terminated when the accused pleaded guilty to the crime as charged and was imposed with the proper penalty as, in fact, they both have filed a petition for probation, however, this court has been subjected to an (sic) endless malicious and unfounded accusations by the lone congressman of the province directed against the dignity and authority of the court and the undersigned judge, acting judicially, which bring (sic) the court into disrepute and/or disrespect.
In this regard, CONG. CESAR V. SARMIENTO is, hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt, why he should not be cited in indirect contempt for his improper conduct, which degrades the administration of justice, through his malicious and unfounded accusations relative to the proceedings taken in this case despite the repeated explanations given by the handling prosecutor and the undersigned as regards R.A. 10951, which amended the Revised Penal Code, and the Revised Guidelines on Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original)
Without filing a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, Sarmiento filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the CA assailing the above-quoted Show Cause Order. He argued that an indirect contempt charge partakes a criminal charge. Hence, the Show Cause Order must be specific with the facts and circumstances as basis of his alleged contemptuous behavior. Sarmiento argued that the use of the words "malicious and unfounded accusations" in the Show Cause Order is vague. 12
Sarmiento also argued that the indirect contempt proceedings were irregular. Under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt proceedings must be docketed, heard and decided, separately when the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court. As the Show Cause Order of the RTC is in relation to Criminal Case No. 6531, there should be separate contempt proceedings. 13
Ruling of the Court of Appels
In a Decision 14 dated August 28, 2018, the CA dismissed Sarmiento's petition. Procedurally, Sarmiento failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the RTC, which is a condition precedent in filing Certiorari with the CA. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration, the petitioner must show a concrete, compelling and valid reason for doing so. The CA held that Sarmiento neither pleaded nor proved that his case was an exception to the rule. On the merits, the CA found no irregularity in the issuance of the Show Cause Order. Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court explicitly allows the court to initiate motu proprio indirect contempt proceedings. The issuance of the Show Cause Order by Judge Contreras is in accordance with said provision. Furthermore, said order is not so vague as to be invalid for it stated that Sarmiento must explain his "malicious and unfounded accusations relative to the proceedings taken in the [criminal case] despite the repeated explanations given by the handling prosecutor and the undersigned [Judge Contreras]" in order not to be cited for contempt. The CA also held that Sarmiento had been informed of the charge for indirect contempt specifically his "improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice" which is provided in Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. According to the CA, the foregoing statements are clear enough for Sarmiento to craft his defense and explain his actions. Finally, the show cause order, if taken similarly as an information in a criminal case, cannot be struck down for being fatally ambiguous. The CA held that "the information needs to state only the ultimate facts; evidentiary matters and finer details may be threshed out during trial." 15
Sarmiento moved to reconsider the Decision of the CA which was denied in a Resolution 16 dated February 19, 2019. Thus, Sarmiento filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. He argued that the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the RTC would be an unnecessary exercise of remedies as the alleged erring judge would be the same person to rule on the validity of the Show Cause Order. Furthermore, rules of procedure can be liberally applied when deciding a case on technicality would cause a miscarriage of justice. Sarmiento claimed of grave injustice by reiterating his arguments on the invalidity of the Show Cause Order for violating his right to due process. 17 The order is ambiguous for failure to set forth the acts or words of Sarmiento to constitute improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Moreover, Sarmiento argued that Judge Contreras erred at the outset in issuing the order because a contempt charge presupposes impeding or obstructing an action, writ, process, order or judgment pending in court. In this case, there is no longer any pending principal action as Criminal Case No. 6531 had been concluded. Thus, there is no factual basis to charge Sarmiento with any act which might possibly impede the administration of justice. Further, an indirect contempt charge must be docketed, heard and decided separately from the principal case pursuant to the provisions of Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. 18
In the Comment, 19 Judge Contreras agreed with the CA finding valid the Show Cause Order. She argued that the order can be issued even when Criminal Case No. 6531 was already terminated. It is her position that Sarmiento's acts created distrust and destroyed the confidence of the public in the court. Judge Contreras reiterated that Sarmiento made malicious accusations, in two separate radio broadcasts, questioning the expeditious termination of Criminal Case No. 6531 and imposition of penalties, despite the explanation provided by the handling prosecutor to the case and her invitation to clarify the procedures of court. 20 DETACa
Moreover, Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provide two methods in initiating contempt proceedings: (1) motu proprio by the court; and (2) by a separate and verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents. Judge Contreras emphasized that the case fell under the first method. Assuming that the second method is applicable, Judge Contreras argued that the initiatory pleading to be filed must be in full compliance with the rules for civil actions and not criminal actions. Finally, Judge Contreras reiterated that the issued order sufficiently satisfied the standards under the Rules of Court. It was a specific order requiring Sarmiento to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his "malicious and unfounded accusations relative to the proceedings" in Criminal Case No. 6531. 21
Ruling of the Court
Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides how indirect contempt proceedings are initiated. The provision reads:
Section 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil action in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, hear and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
From the foregoing, We agree with Judge Contreras that indirect contempt proceedings can be initiated by the court motu proprio. This method applies when indirect contempt is committed against the court or judge possessed or clothed with contempt powers. The second method requiring the filing of a verified petition applies if the contemptuous act is committed not against a court or judicial officer with authority to punish contemptuous acts. 22 Here, the dispute relates to supposed contemptuous acts committed against Judge Contreras, the presiding judge of RTC Virac, Branch 42. Accordingly, the indirect contempt proceedings may be instituted by such court motu proprio. Further, the fact that Criminal Case No. 6531 has terminated does not automatically preclude the court from exercising its contempt powers when such punitive action is necessary to protect its dignity and to vindicate it from acts or conduct intended or calculated to degrade, ridicule or bring the court into disfavor and thereby erode or destroy public confidence in that court. 23 Thus, Sarmiento's positions that the indirect contempt proceedings should be filed separately or that it cannot prosper in view of the termination of Criminal Case No. 6531 are untenable.
While the court may initiate motu proprio indirect contempt proceedings, it is imperative that there be a written charge against the respondent for the proceedings to ensue. 24 Applying the first method provided in Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the written charge by the court may take the form of an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he/she should not be punished for contempt. Here, although the Show Cause Order dated 5 April 2018 required Sarmiento to explain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt for "x x x his malicious and unfounded accusations relative to the proceedings" 25 in Criminal Case No. 6531, We find the same insufficient as it is couched in vague and general terms. We find no circumstances stated therein that constitute Sarmiento's contemptuous acts against the court. In fact, the Show Cause Order merely gave a conclusion that Sarmiento made malicious and unfounded accusations which is an improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. On record, 26 Judge Contreras first mentioned the incidents of Sarmiento's radio broadcast at the Certiorari proceedings before the CA. The judge's allegations raised before the CA cannot substitute the absence of imputing contemptuous acts against Sarmiento in the Show Cause Order. The written charge, in this case the Show Cause Order, must serve to inform the respondent of the imputed contemptuous acts or conduct against him/her because the respondent can be meted out with punishment of a fine, even imprisonment, if found guilty thereof. In this sense, a contempt charge partakes the nature of a criminal prosecution and should follow the proceedings similar to a criminal case. 27 On that note, the safeguards provided for by the Constitution, particularly, where no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law 28 and that one shall have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him 29 should also be accorded to the respondent in the contempt proceedings. Failure to observe due process will render all proceedings null and void. Without stating the contemptuous acts or conduct, the respondent is unable to prepare for trial as he/she has no knowledge what to defend in court. To reiterate, We find that the Show Cause Order dated April 5, 2018 lacked in this relevant aspect making it null and void. Thus, the indirect contempt proceedings cannot ensue because, at the outset, Sarmiento's right to due process had been violated.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated August 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 155467 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Show Cause Order dated April 5, 2018, the indirect contempt proceedings that may have ensued, and all orders or judgment that may have been subsequently issued therefrom are NULL and VOID. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-31.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob; id. at 33-40.
3. Section 77. Cutting, Gathering and/or collecting Timber, or Other Forest Products without License. — Any person who shall cut, gather, collect, removed timber or other forest products from any forest land, or timber from alienable or disposable public land, or from private land, without any authority, or possess timber or other forest products without the legal documents as required under existing forest laws and regulations, shall be punished with the penalties imposed under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That in the case of partnerships, associations, or corporations, the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering, collection or possession shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty, be deported without further proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
The court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the government of the timber or any forest products cut, gathered, collected, removed, or possessed as well as the machinery, equipment, implements and tools illegally used in the area where the timber or forest products are found.
4.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
5.Id. at 53.
6. A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases.
7. An Act Adjusting the Amount or the Value of Property and Damage on Which a Penalty is Based and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, Otherwise Known as "The Revised Penal Code."
8.Rollo, pp. 59-60.
9.Id. at 61-62.
10.Id. at 52.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 35.
13.Id.
14.Supra note 2.
15.Rollo, pp. 37-39.
16. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob; id. at 9-12.
17.Id. at 20-23.
18.Id. at 24-25.
19.Id. at 57-69.
20.Id. at 58-60.
21.Id. at 63-64.
22. Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. III, 1999 Ed., p. 557 citing Nazareno v. Barnes, 220 Phil. 451 (1985).
23.People v. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, 1012-1013 (1995).
24.Supra note 16.
25.Rollo, p. 52.
26.Id. at 36.
27. Herrera, Remedial Law, Vol. III, 1999 Ed., p. 556, citing Fuentes v. Leviste, 203 Phil. 313 (1982).
28. CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (1).
29. CONSTITUTION, Article III, Section 14 (2).