G.R. No. L-25860. June 29, 1967
HON. FERNANDO T. BERNAD, AS CITY MAYOR, HON. FERMIN VILLAR, AS VICE-MAYOR, HON. MANUEL CORTES, HON. LILIANO NERI, HON. TEOPISTO CEBEDO, JR., HON. IRENE LUANSING, HON. CRISTINO A…
SANCHEZ, J.:
Certiorari and prohibition to nullify the contempt charge
initiated by respondent Judge against the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilors, City
Treasurer and City Auditor of Ozamiz City, and to
stop said respondent from proceeding with the contempt case.
On application, this Court on March 25, 1966, issued a
cease-and-desist order transmitted to respondent Judge by telegram that same
day.
Following are the events that spawned the present proceedings:
On March 11, 1966, respondent Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch I, issued
[Special Case No. 9, for contempt, initiated by him against petitioners
herein] an order, directing petitioners, amongst others, to appear before him
in the morning of March 19, 1966, to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt of court for alleged contumacious refusal to provide a “detention
cell or room” for, and to maintain, “all persons who are detention
prisoners pending trial of their cases” at Branch II of said court at Ozamiz City.
On the same date, March 11, the respondent Judge, in a separate
communication, warned petitioners, that if by Friday, March 18, 1966, the
latter should fail “to establish and maintain a well-secured detention
cell” in Ozamiz City, “the citation for
contempt of court will proceed as scheduled”.
In response to this order and as a gesture of cooperation with the province of Misamis Occidental, the Municipal Board of Ozamiz City adopted, on March 14, 1966; Resolution No. 159 whereunder the city offered the temporary use by the
province of one cell or room in the city jail, “for provincial detention
prisoners” triable in Branch II aforesaid,
“until the province shall have constructed its own jail or extension of
the provincial jail”. The board,
however, made of record its belief that “this duty belongs to the province
of Misamis Occidental
and not to the City of Ozamiz“.
On March 17, 1966,
petitioners filed in Special Case No. 9 their answer to the March 11 contempt
charge. They averred that they have
established and maintained a detention cell as required by law, for all city
prisoners; admitted not having provided a detention cell for those coming from
other towns also within the jurisdiction of Branch II, and claimed that this
duty devolves upon the provincial
authorities.
On March 19, 1966
petitioners appeared, as scheduled, before
respondent Judge. The proceedings on
that date terminated without definite results, except that petitioners were
told: “I may consider this case
closed, but officially, I will transfer
this on Saturday. You may not
come”.
On March 22, 1966, the Clerk of Court, by direction of respondent
Judge, wrote the City Mayor, one of petitioners, advising the latter that
failure on petitioners’ part to “remedy the situation obtaining” in the city jail
(which was proposed to house detention provincial prisoners), as reported to
respondent Judge by the provincial warden, “within two days from today,
the contempt charges will continue as scheduled this coming Saturday, March 26,
1966”. The mayor received this
letter on March 23, 1966.
The present petition was verified
on March 24, 1966, and
filed in this Court on March 25, 1966.
Meanwhile, on March 24,
1966, the City Mayor sent a rush telegram to the Clerk of Court, as
follows:
“In connection with your letter March twenty-two re
construction of city jail please furnish us written copy of the direction of
Judge Catolico“
At 3:15 p.m. on the
same day, March 24, the Deputy Clerk of Court answered Mayor Bernad, thus:
“Retel please be informed that upon
consultation with Judge Catolico comma he told me to
inform your honor that court opinion regarding security detention cell is joint
venture both city and provincial officials stop Court order shall be issued on
Saturday March 26 on warden’s report depending provision compliance full
security cell stated in my letter”
On March 25, 1966,
Mayor Bernad wired back:
“Reurtel am surprised because Judge Catolico had never informed us of any duty to provide cell
for provincial detention prisoners stop On the contrary in people versus de
Guzman his honor Judge Catolico rendered opinion
quote all these are an after effect of the indecision of the provincial board
to build a provincial prison house within the territorial limits of Branch II
comma upon the excuse of lack of funds for the project and for the purpose of
maintenance of detention prisoners period This province should provide for the
maintenance of those prisoners confined in the detention prison at Ozamiz City comma or any other place within the territorial
division of the province among the three branches of the court of first
instance unquote Also in open court last Saturday his honor Judge Catolico emphasized that we need not attend in court on
Saturday March 26, 1966 stop”
At about 5:55 p.m. on March 25, 1966, the Deputy Clerk of
Court wired Mayor Bernad, as follows:
“ReUrtel upon consultation Judge Catolico says Ozamiz
City officials need not come
tomorrow”
On March 26, 1966,
respondent Judge signed an order starting with –
“When this case was called today, for the continuation of the
hearing hereof (referring to the contempt case) x x x“
and ending with –
“Done in open court, this 26th day of March,
1966, at Oroquieta, Misamis
Occidental”.
But because of the restraining order
issued by this Court, the foregoing order remains unpromulgated. This order of respondent Judge directed that
petitioners are “hereby ordered dropped from the herein [contempt]
charges” and that this case is “dismissed with regard to
them”. The Judge’s reason is that,
by the city board’s Resolution No. 159 adopted March 14, 1966, petitioners
“have shown their avowed readiness to cooperate in providing a cell for
the detention prisoners of the four municipalities of the province and the
City of Ozamiz proper, awaiting trial in Branch
II,” and that said petitioners have “shown amazing readiness to
cooperate with the officials of the province, thus showing lack of desire to
incur official responsibilities amounting to contempt of court.”
1. The core of the case is
this: Is it petitioners’ duty to provide
a detention cell for, and maintain, provincial detention prisoners whose
cases are cognizable by Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental?
For, if the answer be in
the affirmative, and upon demand petitioners refused to comply, then they are
indeed guilty of disobedience of a lawful command of a court and deserve
punishment for contempt.[1]
We go to the law. The Ozamiz city
charter enumerates the general powers and duties of the mayor, the powers and
duties of the municipal board.[2] Nothing in the charter as
much as intimates a duty on the part of Ozamiz City to provide for a detention
cell for, or maintain, provincial prisoners. Or,
for that matter, those accused of crimes cognizable by Branch II, Court of
First Instance, stationed at Ozamiz City. Congress has seen fit to authorize the
municipal board of said city, in clear express language, to establish and
maintain school, engine houses,
municipal pounds, public markets, and slaughter houses. And yet, such an important function as is to
establish a detention cell for provincial detention prisoners or maintain them
was excluded. A court of justice may not
recast the Ozamiz city charter to include therein a
provision which would place upon the city authorities such an obligation. That is a function clearly outside the
jurisdictional boundaries of courts.
Implicit then in the lack of statutory duty, is that petitioners have
none. That obligation is withheld; it is
not imposed.[3]
Not that the views
expressed herein are without justification.
The Ozamiz city charter commands that all
taxes and revenues of the city be expended upon appropriations “to the
payment of municipal expenses”. And
the authority of the city board to appropriate is narrowed down to “the
expenses of the government of the city”.[4]
Upon the other hand, the
Revised Administrative Code makes it a mandatory duty of provinces to maintain
at their own expense jails at their respective capitals for provincial
prisoners. And persons detained pending
preliminary investigation or pending trial before the Court of First Instance
and persons sentenced to imprisonment of not more than one year or a fine of
not more than P500.00, or both, come within the category of provincial
prisoners.[5]
But if more were needed,
there is the marked delineation of responsibility in reference to the expenses
for the maintenance of prisoners: The
municipal prisoner, by the city or municipality in which the offense with which
he is charged or of which he stands convicted was committed; the province, in
the case of a provincial prisoner. And
this, not to speak of national prisoners whose maintenance is the concern of
the Bureau of Prisons.[6]
Finally, the Revised
Administrative Code enjoins that, except as allowed by law, municipal funds be devoted “exclusively to local public purposes”.[7]
2. With the foregoing legal precepts as guidelines, we come to the
conclusion that where no legal duty is imposed, no legal obligation
exists. There is then no legal
justification for the March 11 order demanding that petitioners comply with
the non-existing obligation to provide a detention cell or room for, and to
maintain, provincial detention prisoners.
And, in requiring petitioners so to do on pain of contempt of court,
respondent Judge acted without jurisdiction.
Certiorari will lie.[8]
And, prohibition will follow as a matter of course.
3. We now take stock of the unpromulgated
order of March 26, 1966. Standing in bold relief is the fact that
respondent Judge therein directed that petitioners be dropped from contempt
charges and that the contempt case as to them be
dismissed. This, in effect, writes finis
to the certiorari and prohibition proceedings before this Court.
Accordingly, with the declaration that respondent’s
order of March 11, 1966, insofar as it affects petitioners, is
hereby declared null and void, the petition herein is hereby dismissed. No costs.
So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Ruiz Castro, JJ.,
concur.
[1]
Section 3(b), Rule 71, Rules of Court.
[2]
Article II, Section 9, Article III, Section 15, Republic Act 321.
[3]
Catuiza vs. People, L-20455, March 31, 1965; Nin
Bay Mining Company vs. Municipality
of Roxas,
etc., L-20125, July 20, 1965.
[4]
Sections 9(c), 15(b), charter.
[5]
Sections 1729 and 1740 (a) (b), Revised Administrative Code.
[6]
Section 1744, Revised Administrative Code.
[7]
Section 2288, Revised Administrative Code.
[8]
Rocha vs. Crossfield, 6 Phil. 355, 359;
Director of Lands vs. Santamaria, 44 Phil.
594, 596; Clemente vs. Lukban,
53 Phil. 931, 934; Government vs. Judge of First Instance of Occidental Negros, 57 Phil. 500, 501; Silvestre vs. Torres, 57
Phil. 885, 891-892; Botelho Shipping Corp. vs.
Leuterio, L-20420, May 30, 1963. See also: III Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
1963 ed., p. 141; II Martin, Rules of Court, 1964 ed., p. 476.