FLAVIANO B. CORTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FELINO BANGALAN, MCTC, APARRI, CALAYAN, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

Cortes versus Bangalan

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Flaviano Cortes against Judge Felino Bangalan of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Aparri and Calayan, Cagayan. Cortes was one of the accused in a criminal case for adultery pending before the respondent judge. He complains that the judge held him in direct contempt for statements made in a letter-complaint to the Supreme Court, and then required him to file a record on appeal to perfect his appeal from that contempt order. The case matters because it draws the boundary between a judge's inherent power to punish contempt and the judge's duty to exercise that power with restraint, and it reminds every lawyer that the elementary rules of appeal, including the rule that no record on appeal is required except in multiple appeals, are presumed known to judges.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator. The complainant charged the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law, oppressive conduct, and abuse of authority. The respondent judge filed his comment, and the complainant filed a reply. Both parties manifested that they were willing to submit the case on the basis of the pleadings on file. The Court Administrator recommended that the respondent judge be fined an amount equivalent to two months of his salary, with a warning. The Supreme Court agreed with the recommendation in principle but found the recommended penalty too harsh, and resolved the case in this decision.

Facts

Flaviano Cortes was one of the accused in a criminal case for adultery raffled to Judge Felino Bangalan. On August 9, 1996, Cortes sent a letter-complaint to Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo Suarez, filed with the Judicial and Bar Council, opposing the nomination of the respondent judge for regional trial court judge. On August 26, 1996, Cortes moved for the voluntary inhibition of the respondent judge from the criminal case, and he attached the administrative letter-complaint to that motion to support his claim that the judge could not be impartial.

In an order dated August 27, 1996, the respondent judge declared Cortes guilty of direct contempt of court and sentenced him to imprisonment of one day and a fine of ten pesos. The judge reasoned that the letter-complaint contained derogatory, offensive, or malicious statements equivalent to misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings, within the meaning of Rule 71. He described the allegations as absolutely false, baseless, and licentious, and based on rumors.

Cortes filed a notice of appeal, which the judge gave due course on September 9, 1996, but the judge ordered him to submit a record on appeal. When Cortes failed to do so, the judge denied the notice of appeal on September 30, 1996 and ordered a warrant of arrest. Cortes was arrested on October 1, 1996, stayed in jail for one day, and paid the ten-peso fine. He then filed this administrative complaint, insisting that his statements were absolutely privileged and that no record on appeal was required under the rules.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge acted with oppressive conduct and abuse of authority in holding the complainant in direct contempt of court for statements made in a letter-complaint filed with the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law in requiring the complainant to submit a record on appeal to perfect an appeal from the contempt order.

Applicable Provisions

Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Judiciary Reorganization Act, provides:

SECTION 39, Appeals. The period of appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decision of any court in all cases shall be fifteen (15) days counted from the notice of the final order, resolution, award, judgment, or decision appealed from: Provided, however, that in habeas corpus cases, the period for appeal shall be forty-eight (48) hours from the notice of the judgment appealed from. No record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal. In lieu thereof, the entire record shall be transmitted with all the pages prominently numbered consecutively, together with an index of the contents thereof. This Section shall not apply in appeals in special proceedings and in other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed under the applicable provisions of the Rules of Court.

This provision is the basis for the second charge, because it expressly states that no record on appeal is required except in cases of multiple appeals, and a contempt proceeding is not one of those cases.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent judge acted precipitately and in a manner that smacked of retaliation rather than the upholding of the court's honor. The alleged offensive language was not directed to the respondent court but to the Supreme Court, before which the administrative complaint was lodged. The letter-complaint was attached to the motion for inhibition merely to support the complainant's contention. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his inhibition that questions his supposed predilection to a case pending before him. As the Court Administrator observed, the judge should have given the Supreme Court the opportunity to rule on the complaint. The Court laid down the rule that a judge may not hold a party in contempt for expressing concern on his impartiality even if the judge may have been insulted therein. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts, judges should exercise it judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, for correction and preservation, not for retaliation or vindication.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent judge's order requiring a record on appeal was not in accord with the established rule. Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is explicit that no record on appeal is required to take an appeal except in cases of multiple appeals. Citing the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila versus Court of Appeals, the Court noted that multiple appeals are allowed in special proceedings, in actions for recovery of property with accounting, in the special civil action of eminent domain, and in foreclosure of mortgage. Contempt proceedings are not among those instances. Thus, when the law is elementary, so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Doctrine

A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern about the judge's impartiality, even if the judge feels insulted by the statement. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, but it must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and for the purpose of correction and preservation, not retaliation or vindication. A motion for inhibition deserves serious consideration and must never be treated lightly by the judge concerned.

Under Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, no record on appeal is required to perfect an appeal except in cases of multiple appeals, such as special proceedings, actions for recovery of property with accounting, eminent domain, and foreclosure of mortgage. Contempt proceedings are not among these exceptions. A judge's failure to know so elementary a rule constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent judge liable and ordered him to pay a fine equivalent to one month of his salary, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that contempt powers are for correction and preservation, not for retaliation or vindication. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule that no record on appeal is required except in multiple appeals, and to test the limits of a judge's contempt power against a party who questions the judge's impartiality.