SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-43491. December 26, 1990.]

ATTY. TEODORO V. CABILAN & ALEJANDRO A. PARALISAN ,

petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE JOSE R. RAMOLETE & PROVINCIAL/CITY
JAIL WARDEN of Cebu City , respondents.

DECISION

PARAS , J : p

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction seeking the
annulment of the April 2, 1976 Judgment of Hon. Jose R. Ramolete in Criminal Case No.
CU-1388 declaring herein petitioners guilty of direct contempt of court sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of ten (10) days imprisonment.
Herein respondent judge is the presiding judge in Criminal Case No. CU-1388, and herein
petitioner Atty. Teodoro V. Cabilan is the private prosecutor. Petitioner Alejandro A.
Paralisan is the husband of Norma Yap Paralisan, one of the prosecution witnesses who
was ordered arrested by respondent judge for failure to attend the scheduled hearing of
the said case, Mrs. Paralisan wrote a letter to respondent judge, explaining her failure and
attached an unverified medical certificate. LLpr

At the hearing of March 29, 1976, the prosecution presented an illegible xerox copy of a
supposed Deed of Sale of a truck executed by the complainant in favor of the accused.
Consequently, petitioner Cabilan, as private prosecutor, moved for the production of the
original which is being kept in the same building. Respondent judge granted the motion
and ordered a ten minute recess. The prosecuting scal, petitioners and Mrs. Paralisan
went to the Notarial Division to search for the original of the document. Thereafter, upon
instruction of the scal, petitioner Paralisan returned to the courtroom to watch their
exhibits. Shortly thereafter, respondent judge allegedly approached him and a heated
exchange of words transpired between them, the details of which are contained in an
af davit Annex "A" led later on March 30, by petitioner Cabilan attached to a motion to
disqualify respondent judge from further hearing the case. The pertinent portions of the
said affidavit, read:
"4. The Honorable Presiding Judge, upon seeing the af ant sitting on the bench
walked back and forth towards said af ant and then, with a pointed nger
directed to af ant said, 'you, you where is your wife? I will have her arrested. I do
not accept that kind of medical certi cate she submitted. I will order the Sheriff
right now to detain your wife,' in a voice so loud as if af ant were his notorious
enemy. Drowned by extreme humiliation, shame and amazed by the violent
attitude of said judge, the af ant rushed up to the Judge and in a loud voice also
asked, 'Judge do you have personal grudge against my wife and my family and
why? Why do you shout at me? I am not a party to the case. Your show of
partiality is conduct unbecoming of a Judge. Are you interested personally in this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 case? I have not seen a Judge acting like this.' I further told him that his partiality
is very apparent. 'Since the start of the trial in this case, you have been
threatening witnesses for the prosecution.' After uttering those words, I left out of
the court room and the Honorable Presiding Judge followed me and threatened
me with arrest and called the Sheriffs available in the vicinity.

"5. Since the start of the trial of this case almost a year ago, I noticed suspicious
behavior of the Honorable Presiding Judge like allowing counsel for the accused
and even the accused himself to enter his chambers without the presence of the
Fiscal and/or private prosecutor.

"6. Personally, I have no intention of intervening or appearing as witness in this

case although I know the facts hereof I also know the questionable acts of
accused especially Romeo Ceniza. But after reading in the papers that the
Honorable Presiding Judge is fond of issuing illegal orders like that Tanhu Case
as enunciated by our Supreme Court, I got interested in said Judge because my
wife was also ordered arrested by her failure to attend the hearing of this case as
a mere witness. I believed that the order of arrest is another illegal order because I
believe that my wife's failure to attend a trial as a witness is NOT direct contempt
but an indirect one instead of arrest, she should merely be cited for contempt.

"7. In my observation, by the conduct of the Honorable Presiding Judge which he

demonstrated to me as above-stated, he is not only fond of issuing illegal order
but is tyrannical, oppressive, whimsical and capricious when he feels like tilting
the scales of justice in favor of a party in the case adverted to under trial.

"8. I feel that taxpayers of this province wherein the Honorable Presiding Judge is
sitting should at least be respected in their rights. We tax payers expect fairness in
the dispensation of justice." (Rollo, p. 13)

Respondent judge, nding the allegations in the said af davit contemptuous, prepared the
herein questioned judgment, but on April 2, 1976, the same was promulgated only to
petitioner Paralisan because petitioner Cabilan was then in Ozamis City. Petitioner
Paralisan was escorted to the City Jail and had already served the sentence. cdphil

On April 7, 1976, petitioners led the instant petition in this Court, and on the same date,
the Second Division of this Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order, and to
order the immediate release of the petitioners (Ibid., p. 36-A).
The sole issue in this case is whether or not respondent judge erred in declaring herein
petitioners guilty of direct contempt of court and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of
ten (10) days imprisonment.
The answer is in the negative.
It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion
in ordering the incarceration of the petitioners without preferred charges, considering that
respondent judge implied in his order that the charges of the petitioners were
unsubstantiated (Par. 2, Judgment, Annex "E"); that it may be that the contempt
contemplated by respondent judge was an indirect contempt; that it was next to
impossible to substantiate the charges in the motion for disquali cation because
petitioner Paralisan was immediately placed under arrest and sentenced to jail without
charges; and that the acts of respondent judge were highly arbitrary and derogatory to his
oath to hear before he condemns and to render justice to anyone regardless of his station
in life.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Petitioners' contention is untenable.
At the outset, it should be stated that this Court has repeatedly declared that the power to
punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in
judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the
court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice ( Halili vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, 136 SCRA 112, 135 [1985]), citing the cases of Slade Perkins vs. Director of
Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20
SCRA 1241; and Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1). Under the Rules of Court, contempt
is classi ed into direct and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed in the
presence of or so near a court or judge and can be punished summarily without hearing.
Indirect contempt is not committed in the presence of the court and can be punished only
after hearing (People v. Navarro , 121 SCRA 707, 710 [1983]). In the case of Ang vs. Castro
(136 SCRA 453, 458 [1985]), this Court ruled that if the pleading containing derogatory,
offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the
proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it is equivalent to a misbehaviour
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration
of justice. This ruling was reiterated in the case of Ante vs. Pascua (162 SCRA 780 [1988]),
where it was held that contemptuous statements made in the pleadings led with the
court constitute direct contempt.
In the instant case, the basis of the judgment for contempt of court is petitioner
Paralisan's af davit which was attached and made as an integral part of the motion for
disquali cation led by petitioner Cabilan which therefore falls squarely under the above
ruling. cdll

As to the claim of petitioner Cabilan that the af davit was modi ed by petitioner Paralisan
and that he discovered the insertion of the derogatory remarks only upon his return to
Cebu City from Ozamis City, suf ce it to say that aside from the arguments presented by
respondent judge to the contrary, petitioner Cabilan, as counsel of record, has control of
the proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes should be within his knowledge and
responsibility (Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1, 23 [1970]).
Nevertheless, considering that petitioner Cabilan has been practicing for nineteen (19)
years and this is the rst time that he is charged with contempt of court, and considering
that the power to punish contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle with the corrective rather than the retaliatory idea of punishment (Baja
vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA 391 [1988]), imposition of a ne of P500.00 without
imprisonment would be enough (Caniza vs. Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295 [1984]).
On the other hand, petitioner Paralisan having already served his sentence, this case is
moot and academic insofar as he is concerned.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED, but the questioned
judgment of April 2, 1976 is MODIFIED by changing the sentence often (10) days
imprisonment to a fine of P200.00 without imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com