75. Oclarit vs. Paderanga      Quimpo,  Borja,  Oclarit Law Offices for petitioner.

260
_______________
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED *
 FIRST DIVISION.
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
261
*
G.R. No. 139519. January 24, 2001. X
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001

261

CONCHITO J. OCLARIT, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MAXIMO G.W. Oclarit vs. Paderanga

PADERANGA, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental,
respondent. PARDO, J.:
Criminal Law;  Contempt; In the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, The Case
the Court introduced a new provision granting a remedy to a person The case before the Court is a special civil action of certiorari assailing the
adjudged in direct contempt by any court.—Even then, an order of direct order1 of respondent judge declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt of
contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemner must court, sentencing him to pay a fine of P11,000.00 and also to serve one (1)
be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the day in jail.X
contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the Court
introduced a new provision granting a remedy to a person adjudged in direct
contempt by any court. Such person may not appeal therefrom, but may avail The Facts
himself of certiorari or prohibition. In such case, the execution of the Petitioner is a lawyer engaged in the private practice of law principally in the
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition provided
City of Cagayan de Oro and the province of Misamis Oriental. 2X
the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment
and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the At times material hereto, petitioner was counsel for the plaintiffs in the case
petition be decided against him. entitled, spouses Gregorio and Pelegrina Babatido v. Elnora and Teodoro
Abella, et al., Civil Case No. 99-194, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental,
Same;  Same; The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt
Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City. Judge Maximo G. W. Paderanga was the
must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the
presiding judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 38. 3X
corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment.—The lawyer’s remarks
explaining his position in the case under consideration do not necessarily On June 1, 1999, the aforecited case was scheduled for continuation of pre-
assume the level of contumely that justifies the court to exercise the power of trial before the lower court. The case was first heard on pre-trial on April 30,
contempt. Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic 1999. In that hearing, petitioner filed a motion to approve compromise
power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in agreement entered into by the parties pointing out that the compromise
facie curiae. The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt must agreement was reached before a barangay captain. 4 Counsel for the
be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the defendants opposed the motion5 because the defendants were placed in a
corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts must exercise disadvantageous condition, arguing that the case was before the court, not
the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because before the barangay. The court ruled that the compromise agreement was
that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for not before the barangay captain but before the court. The parties settled
the functions that they exercise. before the barangay captain. At this point, petitioner informed the court that
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari. the compromise agreement was signed and wasX

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. ___________________

Page 1 of 4
1
 In Civil Case No. 99-194, Order dated June 1, 1999, Petition, Annex “A,” by an order without stating the facts on which it is based and imposing upon
Rollo, p. 26. him the corresponding penalty; and
2
 Petition, Prefatory Statement, Rollo, p. 4. _________________
3 6
 Petition, p. 2, Rollo, p. 5.  Ibid., pp. 7-9, Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at p. 40.
4 7
 The correct term is punong barangay.  Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, 27-72, at pp. 63-66.
5 8
 Petition, Statement of Facts, Rollo, p. 7.  Petition, Annex “C,” Rollo, p. 73.
9
262  Petition, Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 26.
10
262  Petition, Annex “E,” Rollo, p. 78.
11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  Comment, Solicitor General, Rollo, pp. 122-129, at p. 126.
12
Oclarit vs. Paderanga  Filed by registered mail posted on July 30, 1999. Rollo, pp. 4-25. On
October 02, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 130-131).
explaining further when the court told him repeatedly to “shut up.” Then
petitioner requested the court to stop shouting at him. The court rhetorically 263
asked: “why should the court precisely not cite you for contempt for doing
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001
that,” that is, for settling the case before the barangay captain. 6X
263
Consequently, the presiding judge cited petitioner in contempt of court and
imposed on him a fine of P1,000.00. Petitioner remarked that the presiding Oclarit vs. Paderanga
judge was becoming very arrogant. In reply to that, respondent judge
declared: “I will put you in jail. Get a policeman.” At that moment, the court finally (3) if the court could do so, is the order finding petitioner guilty of direct
issued a verbal order holding petitioner for direct contempt of court and contempt of court immediately executory?
sentencing petitioner to serve one (1) day in jail and to pay a fine of
P1,000.00. Petitioner indicated that he would challenge the ruling. 7 Then,
respondent judge issued a “detention commitment” to the Jail Warden, City
Jail, Cagayan de Oro City, committing the person of petitioner Conchita J. The Court’s Ruling
Oclarit for direct contempt.8X In the first place, there was nothing contumacious in the submission to the
court of a motion for approval of compromise agreement reached before a
The next day, with petitioner in jail, he received a copy of the written order barangay captain in a case pending before the court. It is not required that a
declaring him in direct contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of compromise agreement be executed before the court. It may be executed
P1,000.00 and also to serve one (1) day in jail.9 He was released after before anyone or even among the parties themselves and then submitted to
serving one (1) day in jail.10 Apparently, he also paid the fine of P1,000.00 11X the court for approval.

On July 30, 1999, petitioner filed the instant petition. 12X In the second place, the presiding judge must state expressly in the order the
facts constituting the contemptuous behavior of petitioner and declaring him
in direct contempt of court.
The Issues
In this case, the court did not state the specific cause for declaring petitioner
The questions presented are (1) whether petitioner was guilty of direct
guilty of direct contempt of court. Indeed, it would seem that the court cited
contempt of court; (2) if guilty, may the respondent judge declare him guilty
petitioner for direct contempt of court for submitting such compromise

Page 2 of 4
agreement for approval though the compromise was reached before a We find that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in declaring
barangay captain.13 As we said, there is nothing contumacious in such act. petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court, sentencing him to pay a fine of
However, the impression of lawyers in the courtroom at that time was that the P1,000.00 and to serve one day in jail. It was the respondent judge who first
presiding judge was irked because petitioner shouted back and banged the shouted successively at petitioner to “shut up.” When petitioner persisted in
table as petitioner charged the presiding judge with arrogance. 14 This incident making his explanation, the court declared him in direct contempt, to the
is not recorded in the transcript, leaving us in doubt if it occurred. It is extent of stating that the judge had “absolute power.” 21 The lawyer’s remarks
apparent, however, that the presiding judge continuously ordered petitioner explaining his position in the case under consideration do not necessarily
to “shut up.”X assume the level of contumely that justifies the court to exercise the power of
contempt.22 Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic
Even then, an order of direct contempt is not immediately executory or power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in
enforceable. The contemner must be afforded a reasonable remedy to facie curiae.23 The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt must
extricate or purge himself of the contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of Civil be exer-X
Procedure, as amended, the Court introduced a new provision granting a
remedy to a person adjudged in direct contempt by any court. Such person ___________________
may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of certiorari or prohibition. In 15
such case, the execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending  Rule 71, Sec. 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
resolution of 16
 Petition, Annex “D,” Rollo, pp. 74-77.
________________ 17
 Petition, Rollo, pp. 4-25, at p. 17.
13
 Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at pp. 38-64. 18
 Compliance/Comment, Rollo, pp. 92-94, at p. 93.
14
 Compliance/Comment, Annexes “2” and “3,” Rollo, pp. 97-100. 19
 Rule 71, Sec. 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
264 20
 Rule 65, Sec. 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
264 21
 Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at p. 63.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 22
 Cf. People v. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, 994; 243 SCRA 64 [1995].
Oclarit vs. Paderanga 23
 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, Sixth Revised Edition,
such petition provided the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which 1997, p. 803; De Guia v. Guerrero, 186 SCRA 339 [1994].
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the 265
judgment should the petition be decided against him.15X
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001
In fact, petitioner asked the court presided over by respondent judge to fix a
bail for his temporary liberty pending the filing of a petition for 265
certiorari.16 This written motion was filed on the first hour the very next day. It Oclarit vs. Paderanga
was timely filed because the written order of contempt was issued only the
next day and given to petitioner when he was in jail.17 The respondent judge cised on the preservative, not vindictive principle,24 and on the corrective and
did not act on the motion.18 By such inaction, respondent judge deprived not retaliatory idea of punishment.25 The courts must exercise the power to
petitioner of an effective relief from an order of direct contempt of court. This punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is
is a violation of the Rules on contempt of court.19 Under Rule 65, 1997 Rules intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions
of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitioner had sixty (60) days within which to that they exercise.26X
file his petition.20X

Page 3 of 4
 Note.—The power to declare a person in contempt of court should be
The Fallo exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. (Panado vs.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court GRANTS the petition and renders judgment Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 110 [1998])
declaring VOID the order finding petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court in ——o0o——
Civil Case No. 99-194, and sentencing him to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
serve one (1) day in jail. The Court orders respondent judge to reimburse
petitioner the sum of P1,000.00, not out of the amount paid by petitioner to
the court but from his own funds. The Court regrets that petitioner had to
serve time in jail by a despotic act of respondent judge.

The Court orders the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, to file an

administrative charge against respondent Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga,
Regional Trial Judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 38,
Cagayan de Oro City, for gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority,
within fifteen (15) days from notice.

This decision is immediately executory.

Costs against respondent Judge.

SO ORDERED.

     Davide, Jr.  (C.J., Chairman), Puno,  Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago,

JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment declared void.

__________________
24
 Commissioner of Immigration v. Cloribel, 127 Phil. 716; 20 SCRA
1241 [1967].
25
 Nazareno v. Barnes, 220 Phil. 451, 463; 136 SCRA 57 [1985]; Pacuribot v.
Lim, Jr., 341 Phil. 544, 548; 275 SCRA 543 [1997].
26
 Austria v. Masaquel, 127 Phil. 677, 690-691; 20 SCRA
1247 [1967]; Nazareno v. Barnes, supra, Note 25; Angeles v. Gernale,
Jr., 274 SCRA 10 [1997].

266

266

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Rama

Page 4 of 4