[A.M. NO.
RTJ-09-2175 : July 28, 2009] In their comment the respondents denied any intention to malign,
VENANCIO INONOG, Complainant, v. JUDGE FRANCISCO B.
IBAY, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 135, Makati
City, Respondent.
FACTS:
The present administrative case stemmed from the
Sinumpaang Salaysay of Venancio P. Inonog, filed with the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA), charging Judge Francisco B. Ibay of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135, Makati City with gross
abuse of authority. The complaint involved an incident in the Makati
City Hall basement parking lot for which respondent judge cited
complainant in contempt of court because complainant parked his
superior's vehicle at the parking space reserved for respondent
judge.
Respondent judge initiated the proceeding for indirect
contempt by issuing an order directing the complainant to show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt. That same day,
respondent judge issued another order, finding complainant guilty of
contempt for failure to appear at the hearing and show cause why he
should not be cited in contempt.
ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of contempt.
RULING:
NO. The incident is too flimsy to be a basis of a contempt
proceedings. At most, the act resulted to a minor inconvenience on
the part of the respondent but it was unlikely that it delayed the
administration of justice. Besides, it was not shown that complainant
parked his vehicle at the spot intentionally to show disrespect to
Judge Ibay. Respondent Judge Ibay acted precipitously in citing
complainant in contempt of court in a manner which obviously
smacks of retaliation rather than upholding of the court's honor.
[G.R. No. 155849 : August 31, 2011]
LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, OCEANIC CONTAINER
LINES, INC., SOLID SHIPPING LINES CORPORATION, SULPICIO
LINES, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DISTRIBUTION
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, LORENZO
CINCO, AND CORA CURAY, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS:
The petitioners brought this special civil action for contempt against
the respondents, insisting that the publication of the Sea Transport
Update constituted indirect contempt of court for patently, unjustly
and baselessly insinuating that the petitioners were privy to some
illegal act, and, worse, that the publication unfairly debased the
Supreme Court by making "scurrilous, malicious, tasteless, and
baseless innuendo" to the effect that the Supreme Court had allowed
itself to be influenced by the petitioners as to lead the respondents to
conclude that the "Supreme Court ruling issued in one month only,
normal lead time is at least 3 to 6 months." They averred that the
respondents' purpose, taken in the context of the entire publication,
was to "defy the decision, for it was based on technicalities, and the
Supreme Court was influenced!"
discredit, or criticize the Court.
ISSUE:
WON the statements contained in the Sea Transport Update
constitute or amount to indirect contempt of court.
RULING:
No. The petitioners did not sufficiently show how the respondents'
publication of the Sea Transport Update constituted any of the acts
punishable as indirect contempt of court under Section 3 of Rule 71.
The test for criticizing a judge's decision is, therefore, whether or not
the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety. Viewed through the prism of the
test, the Sea Transport Update was not disrespectful, abusive, or
slanderous, and did not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Thereby, the respondents were not guilty of indirect contempt of
court.
G.R. No. 139519. January 24, 2001
CONCHITO J. OCLARIT, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MAXIMO
G.W. PADERANGA, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental,
respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a lawyer and was counsel for the plaintiffs in the case
entitled, spouses Gregorio and Pelegrina Babatido v. Elnora and
Teodoro Abella, et al. The aforecited case was scheduled for
continuation of pre-trial before the lower court. At this point, petitioner
informed the court that the compromise agreement was signed and
was explaining further when the court told him repeatedly to shut up.
Then petitioner requested the court to stop shouting at him.
Consequently, the presiding judge cited petitioner in contempt of
court and imposed on him a fine of P1,000.00 and was released after
serving one (1) day in jail. petitioner filed the instant petition
ISSUE:
WON petitioner was guilty of direct contempt of court.
RULING:
NO. In this case, the court did not state the specific cause for
declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court. Indeed, it would
seem that the court cited petitioner for direct contempt of court for
submitting such compromise agreement for approval though the
compromise was reached before a barangay captain. As we said,
there is nothing contumacious in such act. However, the impression
of lawyers in the courtroom at that time was that the presiding judge
was irked because petitioner shouted back and banged the table as
petitioner charged the presiding judge with arrogance. This incident is
not recorded in the transcript, leaving us in doubt if it occurred. It is
apparent, however, that the presiding judge continuously ordered
petitioner to shut up.
[A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2009 : July 27, 2006] sufficient leeway to avail himself the fullest extent of the remedy
JOSE B. TIONGCO, Complainant, v. JUDGE EVELYN E. SALAO, afforded him by law.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 25, ILOILO CITY,
Respondent.

FACTS:

Complainant is a lawyer engaged in the practice of law. He is the

counsel for the accused in Criminal Cases. He appeared in the court
of the respondent Judge. For hearing on that day were motions of the
accused in Criminal Case No. 53440, a motion to suppress evidence
and to quash Search Warrant No. 26-2001 issued by the respondent
Judge; motion to dismiss and motion for bail in Criminal Case No. 02-
56387; motion to dismiss Criminal Case No. 02-56571; and motion to
dismiss Criminal Case No. 02-55344.

Complainant alleged that after the prosecutor had argued against the
motions, he stood up to argue in support of the same, but he was
prevented because the respondent Judge declared the motions
submitted for resolution. When he vehemently objected to the
respondent Judge's order and protested his being prevented from
speaking, the respondent Judge cited him for direct contempt. The
police officers are ordered to place Atty. Tiongco in prison
immediately.

Aggrieved by the order of contempt and his immediate imprisonment,

complainant initiated the instant complaint.

ISSUE:

WON an order of direct contempt is immediately executory.

RULING:

No. Rule 71, Section 2, of the Rules of Court provides that '

SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person adjudged in direct

contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail
himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of
the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition,
provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered
the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the
judgment should the petition be decided against him. ( Underscoring
supplied.)

Evidently, respondent Judge erred in ordering the immediate

imprisonment of the complainant after declaring him in direct
contempt of court. She should have given complainant the
opportunity to avail himself of the remedies provided by law.
Complainant cannot be faulted for not availing the remedies of
posting of a bond and filing a certiorari case questioning respondent
Judge's order of contempt, as he was immediately arrested by the
policemen and placed in jail thereafter despite complainant's plea for
time to question the order of contempt and manifestation of
willingness to post bail during the pendency of the appeal. Due
regard must also be given to the fact that complainant is of advanced
age. At 83, he cannot be expected to be as vigilant in asserting his
rights under the law, such that, when placed under such
circumstance, the respondent Judge should have given complainant