ROMULO C. FELIZMEÑA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RICARDO D. GALANO, RESPONDENT.

This petition for certiorari seeks to annul the following
orders of respondent judge: (1) contempt order dated March 22, 1983 in
Criminal Case No. R-82-2606 ordering Attys. Eriberto Decena and Romulo
Felizmeña (herein petitioner) to pay a fine of P50.00 each “for not
fulfilling their duties as officers of the court and as lawyers of the
offended party”; and (2) the order issued during the hearing on April
19, 1983 of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, where respondent
judge ordered petitioner to pay the fine of P50.00 immediately,
otherwise respondent judge would order petitioner’s immediate arrest and
confinement in jail.

Petitioner is a member of the law firm Veto and Felizmeña, which was the
private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. R-82-2606 entitled People of
the Philip­pines vs. Ester Babac de Torres, et al. for estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document. Peti­tioner represented the law
firm during the presentation of evidence for the prosecution until he
rested his case on September 22, 1981.

Two months later, the Manila City Hall was burned. The records of Criminal Case No. R-82-2606 were totally destroyed.

In December 1981, petitioner fell ill, by reason of which the
prosecution of Criminal Case No. R-82-2606 was re-assigned to Atty.
Eriberto Decena (an associate in Veto & Felizmeña) who thereafter
personally appeared in all hearings of the case and signed all pleadings
therein.

On January 26, 1982, Asst. Fiscal Reynaldo Sarmiento, the public
prosecutor, filed a petition for reconstitution of the burned records.
In the hearing thereof, the private prosecutor admitted having copies of
the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonial evidence as
well as copies of the documentary evidence.

On February 15, 1983, Atty. Decena filed a manifestation that he had
already submitted the records of the case and prayed that the petition
for reconstitution be approved.

On March 22, 1983, respondent judge issued the contempt order which is now assailed. It reads:

“Attys. Romulo Felizmeña and Eriberto H. Decena are fined P50.00
each for not fulfilling their duties as officers of the court and as
lawyers of the offended party.

“Let the scheduled hearing of the petition for reconstitution be reset to April 13, 1983 at 8:30 a.m.”

Atty. Decena, on his own behalf, filed a motion to set aside the
contempt order on the ground that he had not committed any contemptuous
act. He further alleged that if the basis of the citation for contempt
was the pending petition for reconsti­tution of records, he had already
submitted the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence.

Petitioner subsequently filed a separate motion for reconsideration of
the contempt order, alleging that he was not aware of any duty he had
failed to do, for which he could be held in contempt. During the
scheduled hearing on April 19, 1983, petitioner manifested that he was
submitting his motion without further argument. But respondent judge
did not agree. He insisted that a hearing be held, during which he
asked petitioner to admit his mistake (without however specifying it)
and apologize to the court. When petitioner refused on the ground that
he had not made any mistake, he was required to pay the fine of P50.00
immediately, otherwise he would be “arrested now and be detained in jail
with the common criminals there.”

The entire transcript of stenographic notes during the hearing on April 19, 1983 before respondent judge reads:

“Atty. Felizmeña:

Appearing as movant. If Your Honor, please, I am submitting my motion without further arguments.

“Court:

No, no, you have statements here.

Mr. Counsel, you stated in your Motion for Reconsideration that
the order ‘does not specify what duty or duties that you have failed to
ful­fill’, but up to the time that you have rested, I have not seen any
withdrawal you filed as Private Prosecutor.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

Our law firm is representing the complainant bank. I was the
Private Prosecutor in the above-entitled case up to the time the
prosecution had rested its case and, thereafter, the offended party has
been repre­sented in this case by another lawyer of the same firm, Atty.
Eriberto H. Decena, our Associate, including the reconstitution of the
burned records.

“Court:

Did the law firm withdraw?

“Atty. Felizmeña:

No, Your Honor.

“Court:

Then the burden of evidence is in your part since the law firm did
not withdraw and you have not filed any withdrawal of appearance.

You just filed your motion without verifying from the records that I
have already lifted my Order. I know Atty. Veto. He has appeared
here. All the members of the law firm are liable here.

Mr. Felizmeña, ‘kinalimutan ko na ito’, but you still insist on
your motion. ‘Gusto mong maging bida.’ What are your reasons for making
such gratuitous statements in your motion? You want me to read to
you…?

‘Undersigned does not know what duties he has failed to fulfill in
the above-entitled case as an officer of the Court and as lawyer of the
offended party, since under­signed after the prosecution of the case
has been taken over by Atty. Eriberto H. Decena has no duty to perform
whatsoever before the Court and the offended party.

‘Undersigned has been in the practice of law for more than 30 years
now and has always been sincere in his duties before this Court and
other Courts and to his clients. The above order, if not revoked would
be a black mark not only on undersigned’s integrity and competence as a
lawyer but also on the undersigned’s reputation as a practitioner.’

As an Officer of the Court, you do not know what duties you have
failed to fulfill in this case and you also stated here that you have
been in the practice of law for more than thirty years now. You also
stated here that if the order will not be revoked, it would be a black
mark. What do you mean?

If you insist on your motion, then go ahead, I will meet it.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

I am not aware of the lifting of the Order, Your Honor. The records
do not show the Order has been lifted. I went to the province to attend
a hearing of another case in Batangas City last April 13, 1983 and it
was our Associate, Atty. Decena, who appeared here to argue his motion.
Atty. Decena filed his own motion to set aside the order of March 22,
1983 only on his own behalf. Hence, I have to file the instant motion.

“Court:

Since you have already filed your motion and you will not withdraw it, I have to rule.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

Your Honor, if the order of March 22, 1983 has already been lifted then this motion is not necessary.

“Court:

No. I will meet you squarely and rule on your motion.

I am pleading to you Government lawyers to expedite this case
because the U.S. Government is involved. It is expecting, after giving
the benefits to the Filipino, to prosecute this case. You are an
employee of the bank. If you made a mistake you must admit your
mis­take and apologize to the Court.

All right, if you insist on your Motion, pay the fine of P50.00.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

Your Honor, I am not an employee of the bank. We are retained counsel
of the bank. I have not made any mistake before this Court. How can I
apologize for a mistake I have not made, Your Honor.

“Court:

You will not admit your mistake. All right, you are ordered to pay a fine of P50.00.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

May I clarify, Your Honor, if this is an additional fine to the original fine of P50.00?

“Court:

No, no, no….only P50.00 under the Order.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

Your Honor, I am manifesting that I will appeal this Order and I am now making my notice of appeal.

“Court:

Alright, if you insist on your motion and you will not comply with
this Order and pay the fine now, I will have you arrested now and be
detained in jail with the common criminals there.

(to interpreter)

Call the Sheriff.

(to counsel)

If you leave I will have you arrested by the police. If the police
cannot arrest you, I will have you arrested by the Military.

(to Sheriff)

Give him a receipt for P50.00.

“Atty. Felizmeña:

I am going to pay, Your Honor, but under protest. May I now be permitted to leave the Court, Your Honor?

“Court:

Yes, this is a free country.” (Petition, Annex “B”.)

It was against this background that the instant petition for certiorari has been filed.

Respondent judge claims that before he issued his contempt order of
March 22, 1983, i.e., from December 1981 to April 1983, he had
repeatedly ordered, requested and even pleaded with petitioner to
produce the documents needed to reconstitute the burned records in
Criminal Case No. R-82-2606, but the latter did not comply. (Answer,
pp. 1-3.) On the other hand, according to petitioner, after he was
stricken ill in December 1981 and was replaced by Atty. Decena, he never
appeared before respondent’s court until April 19, 1983; and therefore,
respondent judge could not have issued to petitioner the supposed
orders for the alleged violation of which the latter has been held in
contempt. Petitioner calls attention to the fact that respondent judge
“‘has not produce(d) any single copy of such order nor any transcript of
stenographic notes of such order requiring the petitioner to per­form
some acts or duties.” (Reply, p. 7.)

For the purpose of this decision, it is not necessary to determine
whether the alleged orders were indeed issued to petitioner. Even
assuming that they were, the assailed contempt orders must be stricken
down. In reaching this conclusion, we have not overlooked the fact that
as of March 22, 1983 (date of contempt order), the reconstitution case
had been pending for about one year and two months; and respondent judge
was obviously motivated by a healthy desire to expedite the
reconstitution proceedings when he then acted as he did.

The fault imputed to petitioner is disobedience of a court order – an
indirect contempt which must be the subject of a written charge, with
the accused afforded an opportunity to be heard by himself or counsel.
[Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 3(b).] Unfortunately, in the absence of a
written charge and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to
defend himself, he and Atty. Eriberto Decena were found guilty and fined
P50.00 each “for not fulfilling their duties as officers of the court
and as lawyers of the offended party.”

Subsequently, in his motion for consideration, petitioner manifested
that he was not aware of the duties he had failed to do, for which he
was held in contempt. During the hearing thereon on April 19, 1983,
instead of telling petitioner what precisely his fault was, respondent
judge arbitrarily ordered petitioner to pay the fine of P50.00 upon the
latter’s refusal to admit his alleged mistake and apologize to the
court. Despite petitioner’s manifestation that he was appealing the
order, he was required to pay the fine forthwith under pain of immediate
arrest.

“Court:

You will not admit your mistake. All right, you are ordered to pay a fine of P50.00.

x x x x

Atty. Felizmeña:

Your Honor, I am manifesting that I will appeal this Order and I am now making my notice of appeal.

Court:

Alright, if you insist on your motion and you will not comply with
this Order and pay the fine now, I will have you arrested now and be
detained in jail with the common criminals there.

(to interpreter)

Call the Sheriff.

(to counsel)

If you leave I will have you arrested by the police. If the police
cannot arrest you, I will have you arrested by the Military.

(to Sheriff)

Give him a receipt for P50.00.

(TSN during the hearing on motion for recon­sideration on April 19, 1983. Petition, Annex “B”.)

Under the circumstances, it is evident that respondent judge acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction in finding petitioner guilty of
indirect contempt in the absence of a prior written charge and without
affording him an opportunity to be heard and in imposing upon him a fine
of Fifty Pesos therefor.

“It is well settled that jurisdiction of the subject matter of a
particular case is something more than the general power conferred by
law upon a court to take cognizance of cases of the general class to
which the particular case belongs. It is not enough that a court has
power in abstract to try and decide the class of litigations to which a
case belongs; it is necessary that said power be properly invoked, or
called into activity, by the filing of a petition, complaint or other
appropriate pleading. A Court of First Instance has an abstract
jurisdiction or power to try and decide criminal cases for homicide
committed within its territorial jurisdiction; but it has no power to
try and decide a criminal case against a person for homicide committed
within its territory, unless a complaint or information against him be
filed with the said court. And it has also power to try civil cases
involving title to real estate situated within its district; but it has
no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a dispute or controversy between
two persons over title of real property located in his province, unless a
proper complaint be filed with its court. So, although the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan has power conferred by law to punish as guilty
of indirect contempt a party who disobeys its order or judgment, it did
not have or acquire jurisdiction of the particular case under
consideration to declare the petitioners guilty of indirect contempt,
and order their confinement until they have executed the deed of
conveyance in question, because neither a charge has been filed against
them nor a hearing thereof held as required by law.

“The respondent Judge Angel Mojica acted not only without
jurisdiction in pro­ceeding against and declaring the petitioners guilty
of contempt, but also in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the
confinement of the petitioners, because it had no power to impose such
punishment upon the latter.” (Caluag vs. Pecson, 82 Phil. 8 at 12-13.)

Accordingly, the assailed contempt order dated March 22, 1983 as well as
that issued by respondent judge on April 19, 1983 requiring petitioner
to pay a fine of Fifty Pesos are hereby annulled and set aside. The
fine paid shall be refunded to petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De La Fuente, JJ., concur.