'1'\ ')
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBA YAN
QUEZONCITY
FOURTH DIVISION
SB-ll-SCA-0002
For: Contempt
JUAN ROMEO NEREUS ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
-
versus -
CRUSADER FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT
(CGG), VENANCIO BALANSAG, JR.,
FELIX VERGARA, JR.,
LUCIEN C. DY TIOCO, ET AL.,
Respondent.
Present:
QUIROZ, J., Chairperson,
CRUZ, J., and
ECONG,J:
Promulgated:
April
19, UJIl
~
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Quiroz, J.:
Before this Court is the petition for contempt filed by petitioner Juan Romeo
Nereus
Acosta
against
Crusader
for Good Government
(CGG),
Venancio
Balansag, Jr., Felix Vergara, Jr., Lucien C. Dy Tioco, Divino Bornidor, Jr., Maria
Emma B. Lee, Carlo Matias and John Doe, a.k.a. "Rolly" on June 6, 2011; the
"Answer" filed by Bornidor, Jr., and Lee on October 14, 2011; and the "Answer"
filed by Dy Tioco on December 13,2011.
Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 024-2017 dated February 1,2017 .
/
.
/
On November
SB-11-SCA-0002
2
Resolution
10, 2011, petitioner filed a "Notice of Dismissal for Dy
Tioco," asking this Court that Dy Tioco be excluded as respondent pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
In his Omnibus Motion filed on November 17, 2011, petitioner manifested
that respondent Matias refused to receive the summons served upon him as his real
name was Carlito C. Matias; and moved that respondents CGG, Balansag, Jr.,
Vergara, Jr., and Matias be declared in default for failing to file their "Answers"
within the reglementary period.
With regard to Bornidor, Jr., and Lee, who had
filed their "Answer," petitioner asked that pre-trial be scheduled.
In its Order dated January 18,2017, this Court gave petitioner five (5) days
therefrom to file proper pleadings appropriate to the pending petition, after which
the same would be submitted for resolution.
On January 31, 2017, petitioner filed a "Notice and Motion (To Dismiss),"
averring that he no longer finds any basis for the relief sought in this action.
THE PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
In his petition for contempt, petitioner Acosta avers that he ran for a
senatorial seat in the May 10, 2010 national elections, but lost. After the election,
his name was mentioned as a possible Secretary of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources.
However, certain groups publicly opposed the possible
appointment of Acosta as DENR Secretary.
On May 11, 2011, a full-age ad
entitled "An Open Letter to Pres. Noynoy Aquino" was published
in The
Philippine STAR in which the sender was a group called "Crusaders for Good
Government" (CGG). The said letter disclosed that Acosta had four criminal cases
pending with the Sandiganbayan; that Acosta and his eo-accused were temporarily
out on bail; that the cases against him involved the release of PI 0,500,000.00 from
the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Acosta in favor of Bukidnon
Integrated Home Industries (BINHI, Inc.) and Bukidnon Vegetable Producer
Resolution
S8-11-SCA-0002
3
Cooperative (BVPC); that these organizations were incorporated by Acosta's
relatives; that Commission on Audit (COA) Auditor and state witness Carlo Matias
identified the relatives of Acosta as within the ambit of political influence he
exercised, and who were exercising the same; that even Acosta's cousins, Divino
Bornidor, Jr., and Maria Emma B. Lee, filed two cases: for estafa, and for violation
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and R.A. No. 6713 with the Ombudsman of
Mindanao; and that the CGG heard that Acosta would announce during his
speaking engagements that he was the next DENR Secretary.
Acosta further alleges in his petition for contempt that in an interview with
The Philippine Daily Inquirer, respondents Balansag and Vergara admitted having
sent the "Open Letter" for publication.
He adds that he had been informed that
Matias, Bornidor, Jr., Lee, and "Rolly' also admitted having participated in the
publication thereof.
He thus claims that respondents are liable for indirect contempt under
paragraph 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court; and that the "Open
Letter" violates the sub judice rule.
In their Answer, Bornidor, Jr., and Lee state that they have no personal
knowledge on their part sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations in the petition regarding the personality or existence of an entity named
"Crusader for Good Government" or of a certain "Rolly" or of Fr. Venancio
Balansag, Felix Vergara, or Carlito Matias.
They also deny the rest of the
assertions for being false, for being based purely on invalid conjectures, and
maintain that they had no participation in the printing of the "Open Letter," and no
knowledge of it having been printed in The Philippine STAR. They further argue
that the allegations of the complaint do not constitute a reasonable ground for
determination of a finding of culpability of contempt of court. Lastly, they assert
that there was no evidence that they caused the publication of the "Open Let r"
and said that they never caused its publication.
4
Resolution
SB-11-SCA-0002
In his Answer, Dy Tioco, Vice President for Advertising of The Philippine
STAR, avers that petitioner deemed that Dy Tioco be dropped as one of the
respondents in the instant petition, as the former had already filed an Affidavit of
Desistance and a Notice of Dismissal withdrawing the charges as against Dy
Tioco. Dy Tioco also explains that it was never his intention to violate the sub
judice rule or to make any improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct or
degrade the administration of justice; and that his participation was limited only to
the fact that he was in charge of advertisements appearing in The Philippine STAR.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
Dismissal upon notice by the plaintiff is explicitly provided for under
Section 1, Rule 17 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, thus quoted:
x
X X A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for
summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order
confirming the dismissal. Unless otherwise stated in the notice, the dismissal is
without prejudice, except that a notice operates as an adjudication upon the merits
when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in a competent court an action
based or including the same claim. (emphasis supplied)
Thus considering that petitioner no longer wishes to continue with the
proceedings for contempt, and in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure,
this petition is dismissed with regard to Crusader for Good Government (CGG),
Balansag, Jr., Vergara, Jr., Matias and John Doe (a.k.a. "Rolly"), as they did not
file their Answers to the petition for contempt.
On the other hand, with regard to Bornidor, Jr., Lee, and Dy Tioco who had
filed their respective Answers, the petition for contempt must be resolved on the
merits.
5
Resolution
SB-11-SCA-0002
Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that:
x X X Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. - After
a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
comment and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a
person guilty of any of the following act may be punished for indirect contempt:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his
official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after
being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the
judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction,
enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such
real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or
possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to
the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes
or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt
under Section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting
as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the
custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a court
held by him. (emphasis supplied)
XXXX
The Supreme Court, in Bildner v. Ilusorio, I defined indirect contempt in this
WIse:
x x x On the basis of the foregoing principles, it can be safely concluded
that under Sec. 3(d) of Rule 71 on contempt, "any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice" constitutes criminal contempt. x x x
The contempt power, however plenary it may seem, must be exercised
judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of
utilizing it for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for
retaliation or vindication.
To be sure, courts and judges, as institutions, are
neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticisms of their conduct. And wellrecognized is the right of citizens to criticize in a fair and respectful manner and
through legitimate channels the acts of courts or judges, who in turn ought to be
patient and tolerate as much as possible everything which appears as hasty and
unguarded expression of passion or momentary outbreak of disappointment at the
outcome of a case. Even snide remarks, x x x do not necessarily partake the
G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009, 588
seRA
378.
6
Resolution
nature of a contumacious
Court.'
SB-11-SCA-0002
utterance actionable under Rule 71 of the Rules of
In the present case, it has not been established that herein respondents were
responsible for any of the allegations laid forth in the complaint.
Petitioner's
account of who sent the letter for publication, and of who comprise the group
"Crusader for Good Government" contains mostly accusations, and are hearsay
evidence.
Even if this Court were to assume that the acts imputed to respondents were
true, they would not fall within "improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly,
to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice."
There is nothing to
show that this Court has, in any way, been hampered in its administration of
justice.
Moreover, filing for contempt cannot be resorted to as a remedy every
time a litigant feels that he or she has been maligned, for this power ensures the
dignity and authority of the Court, and is used only when no other recourse can be
had.
WHEREFORE,
in VIew of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the
petition for contempt filed by Juan Romeo Nereus Acosta against Crusader for
Good Government (CGG), Venancio Balansag, Jr., Felix Vergara, Jr., Lucien C.
Dy Tioco, Divino Bornidor, Jr., Maria Emma B. Lee, Carlo Matias and John Doe,
a.k.a. "Rolly."
SO ORDERED.
Id. at 392-393.
Resolution
7
SB-11-SCA-0002
WE CONCUR:
~~
~M/fftifJ
GERALDINE FAITH A.~CONG
Associate Justice