Espuelas vs People G.R. No. L-2990 December 17, 1951
Facts
!" #u"e 9 a"$ #u"e 2%, 19%7, bot& $ates '"clus've, '" t&e to(" o) *a+b'lara", o&ol, !scar Espuelas e"$o/a &a$ &'s p'cture tae", ma'"+ 't to appear as ') &e (ere &a"+'"+ l')eless at t&e e"$ o) a p'ece o) rope suspe"$e$ )orm t&e l'mb o) t&e tree, (&e" '" trut& a"$ '" )act, &e (as merel sta"$'"+ o" a barrel. )ter secur'"+ cop'es o) &'s p&oto+rap&, Espuelas se"t cop'es o) same to Free Press, t&e Eve"'"+ Ne(s, t&e 'saas, Lam$a"+ o) +e"eral c'rculat'o" a"$ ot&er local per'o$'cals '" t&e Prov'"ce o) o&ol but also t&rou+&out t&e P&'l'pp'"es a"$ abroa$, )or t&e'r publ'cat'o" ('t& a su'c'$e "ote or letter, (&ere'" &e ma$e to appear t&at 't (as (r'tte" b a ct't'ous su'c'$e, lberto Reve"'era Reve"'era a"$ a$$resse$ to t&e latter3s suppose$ (')e tra"slat'o" o) (&'c& letter or "ote, stat'"+ &'s $'sma a"$ a$m'"'strat'o" o) Pres'$e"t Ro4as, po'"t'"+ out t&e s'tuat'o" '" e"tral Lu/o" a"$ Lete, a"$ $'rect'"+ &'s (')e &'s $ear (')e to (r'te to Pres'$e"t *ruma" a"$ &urc&'ll o) 6 a"$ tell t&em t&at '" t&e P&'l'pp'"es P&'l'pp'"es t&e +over"me"t 's '")este$ ('t& ma" 8'tlers a"$ ussol'"'s.
ssue
:&et&er t&e accuse$ 's l'able o) se$'t'ous l'bel u"$er rt. 1%2 o) t&e RP a+a'"st t&e Gover"me"t o) t&e P&'l'pp'"es;
8el$
rme$ ('t& costs.
"al/e$ )or mea"'"+ a"$ (e'+&e$ '" 'ts co"se=ue"ces, t&e art'cle (r'tte" bbt&e accuse$, ca""ot )a'l to 'mpress t&'"'"+ perso"s t&at 't sees to so( t&e see$s o) se$'t'o" a"$ str')e. *&e '")ur'at'"+ la"+ua+e 's "ot a s'"cere e?ort to persua$e, (&at ('t& t&e (r'ter3s s'mulate$ su'c'$e a"$ )alse cla'm to martr$om a"$ (&at ('t& 's )a'lure to part'cular'/e. :&e" t&e use 'rr'tat'"+ la"+ua+e ce"ters "ot o" persua$'"+ t&e rea$ers but o" creat'"+ $'sturba"ces, t&e rat'o"able o) )ree speec& ca""ot appl a"$ t&e speaer or (r'ter 's remove$ )rom t&e protect'o" o) t&e co"st'tut'o"al +uara"t.
) 't be ar+ue$ t&at t&e art'cle $oes "ot $'scre$'t t&e e"t're +over"me"tal structure but o"l Pres'$e"t Ro4as a"$ &'s me", t&e repl 's t&at art'cle 1%2 pu"'s&es "ot o"l all l'bels a+a'"st t&e Gover"me"t but also @l'bels a+a'"st a" o) t&e $ul co"st'tute$ aut&or't'es t&ereo).@ *&e @Ro4as people@ '" t&e Gover"me"t obv'ousl re)er o) least to t&e Pres'$e"t, &'s ab'"et a"$ t&e maAor't o) le+'slators to (&om t&e a$Aect'ves $'rt, 8'tlers a"$ ussol'"'s (ere "aturall $'recte$. !" t&'s score alo"e t&e co"v'ct'o" coul$ be up&el$.
Re+ar$'"+ t&e publ'cat'o", 't su++ests or '"c'tes rebell'ous co"sp'rac'es or r'ots a"$ te"$s to st'r up people a+a'"st t&e co"st'tute$ aut&or't'es, or to provoe v'ole"ce )rom oppos't'o" (&o ma see to s'le"ce t&e (r'ter. :&'c& 's t&e sum a"$ substa"ce o) t&e o?e"se u"$er co"s'$erat'o".
*&e esse"ce o) se$'t'ous l'bel ma be sa'$ to 'ts 'mme$'ate te"$e"c to st'r up +e"eral $'sco"te"t to t&e p'tc& o) 'lle+al coursesB t&at 's to sa to '"$uce people to resort to 'lle+al met&o$s ot&er t&a" t&ose prov'$e$ b t&e o"st'tut'o", '" or$er to repress t&e ev'ls (&'c& press upo" t&e'r m'"$s.
A.M. No. 01-12-03-SC
July 29, 2002
IN RE: PUBLISHED ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST MEMBERS ! THE CURT IN THE PLUNDER LA" CASE HURLED B# ATT#. LENARD DE $ERA %APUNAN, J .:
On December 11, 2001, the court En Banc issued the following Resolution directing respondent Atty. Leonard De era to e!plain why he should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for uttering some allegedly contemptuous statements in relation to the case in"ol"ing the constitutionality of the #lunder Law $Republic Act %o. &0'0(1 which was then pending resolution)
*uoted hereunder are newspaper articles with contemptuous statements attributed to Atty. Leonard De era concerning the #lunder Law case while the same was still pending before the +ourt. he statements are italici-ed for ready identification) PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER
uesday, %o"ember , 2001 E'() *(+) l(+ /o' ou-B(oy +(u'
#lunder Law De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a petition filed by Estrada’s lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional for its supposed vagueness. De era said he and his group were /greatly disturbed/ by the rumors from upreme +ourt insiders. Reports said that upreme +ourt ustices were tied o" er the constitutionality of the #lunder Law, with two other ustices still undecided and uttered most li3ely to inhibit, said #lunder 4atch, a coalition formed by ci"il society and militant groups to monitor the prosecution of 5strada. /4e are afraid that the 5strada camp6s effort to coerce, bribe, o r influence the ustices considering that it has a #700 million slush fund from the aborted power grab that 8aywill most li3ely result in pro5strada decision declaring the #lunder Law either unconstitutional or "ague, / the group said. PHILIPPINE DAIL# IN&UIRER
8onday, %o"ember 19, 2001 SC u' )'u' /'o+ E'() )(l, /o
!!! /#eople are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally charged./ aid lawyer Leonard de era of the 5:ual ;ustice for All 8o"ement and a leading member of the 5strada Resign mo"ement. e voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal rendering the plunder law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions! probably more massive than those that led to "eople "ower ##. !!!
De era warned of a crisis far worse than the /ueteng/ scandal that led to #eople #ower << if the rumor turned out to be true. $"eople wouldn’t %ust swallow any Supreme Court decision that is basically wrong. Sovereignty must prevail.$ 4=5R5>OR5, the court resol"ed to direct Atty. Leonard De era to e!plain within a none!tendible period of ten $10( days from notice why he should not be punished for contempt of court. O ORD5R5D.2 urthermore, respondent ustified his statement and said that /the people wouldn6t ust swallow any upreme +ourt decision that is basically wrong/ as an e!pression of his opinion and as /historically correct,/ citing the ouster of former #resident >erdinand 5. 8arcos through people power in 19', and the resignation of former #resident 5strada from office as a result of pressure from the people who gathered at 5DA to demand the impeachment process be stopped for being a farce, and that 5strada step down because he no longer had the mandate of the >ilipino people.'
4hile he admitted to ha"ing uttered the aforecited statements, respondent denied ha"ing made the same to degrade the +ourt, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into disrepute.9 After a careful consideration of respondent6s arguments, the +ourt finds his e!planation unsatisfactory and hereby finds him guilty of indirect contempt of court for uttering statements aimed at influencing and threatening the +ourt in deciding in fa"or of the constitutionality of the #lunder Law. he udiciary, as the branch of go"ernment tas3ed to administer ustice, to settle usticiable contro"ersies or disputes in"ol"ing enforceable and demandable rights, and to afford redress of wrongs for the "iolation of said rights10 must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of outside influence or pressure. An independent udiciary is essential to the maintenance of democracy, as well as of peace and order in society. >urther, maintaining the dignity of courts and enforcing the duty of citi-ens to respect them are necessary aduncts to the administration of ustice.11 hus, Rule &1, ection ? $d( of the Re"ised Rules of +ourt authori-es the courts to hold liable for criminal contempt a person guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or authority of the court, or of an act obstructing the administration of ustice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.12 Respondent cannot ustify his contemptuous statementsas3ing the +ourt to dispel rumors that it would declare the #lunder Law unconstitutional, and stating that a decision declaring it as such was basically wrong and would not be accepted by the peopleCas utterances protected by his right to freedom of speech. reedom of speech is not absolute, an d must occasionally be balanced with the re:uirements of e:ually important public interests, such as the maintenance of the integrity of the courts and orderly functioning of the administration of ustice.1? hus, the ma3ing of contemptuous statements directed against the +ourt is not an e!ercise of free speech rather, it is an abuse of such right. Enwarranted attac3s on the dignity of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the e!ercise of said right cannot be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public respect therefor and confidence therein.1@
indi"idual e!ercises the right of selfdefense, it will act to preser"e its e!istence as an unpreudiced tribunal.1
P4( . CA, 1&' +RA ?2 $19'9( >) #ursuant to the Antimut +ampaign of 8ayor Ramon Fagatsng, policemen sei-ed and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along 8anila sidewal3s, maga-ines, publications and other reading materials belie"ed to be obscene, pornographic, and indecent and later burned the sei-ed materials in public. Among the publications sei-ed and later burned was /#inoy #layboy/ maga-ines published and coedited by plaintiff Leo #ita. After his inuncti"e relief was dismissed by the R+ and his appeal reected by +A, he see3s re"iew with +, in"o3ing the guaranty against unreasonable searches and sei-ure.
serach of the premises 45 >orum and 8etropolitan 8ail, two 8etro 8anila Dailies, by reason of a defecti"e warrant.
here is a greater reason in this case to reprobate the :uestioned raid, in the complete absence of a warrant, "alid or in"alid. he fact that the instant case in"ol"es an obscenity rap ma3es it no different from Furgos, a political case, because speech is speech, whether political or /obscene/. he authorities must apply for the issuance of the a search warrant from the udge , if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order. hey must con"ince the court that the materials sought to be sei-ed are /obscene/ and pose a clear and present danger of an e"il substanti"e enough to warrant tate interference and action. he udge must determine 4O% the same are indeed /obscene/) the :uestion is to be resol"ed on a casetocase basis and on the udgeIs sound discretion.
DE LEON, JR., J .:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the Decision [1] dated August 29, 1997 and Resolution [2] dated anuar! 7, 199" of the #ourt of Appeals in #A$%&R& '( )o& *9"7", affir+ing the Resolutions [*] of respondent #ivil 'ervice #o++ission #'#- finding petitioners guilt! of conduct pre.udicial to the service and i+posing a penalt! of si/$0- +onths suspension without pa!& 1
2
*
(etitioners are teachers fro+ different pulic schools in etro anila& 3n various dates in 'epte+er and 3ctoer 1994, petitioners did not report for work and instead, participated in +ass actions ! pulic school teachers at the 5iwasang Bonifacio for the purpose of petitioning the govern+ent for redress of their grievances& 3n the asis of reports su+itted ! their respective school principals that petitioners participated in said +ass actions and refused to co+pl! with the return$to$work order issued on 'epte+er 17, 1994 ! then 'ecretar! 6sidro D& #ario of the Depart+ent of 8ducation, #ulture and 'ports D8#'-, petitioners were ad+inistrativel! charged with such offenses as grave +isconduct, gross neglect of dut!, gross violation of civil service 1
2
C
law, rules and regulations and reasonale office regulations, refusal to perfor+ official dut!, gross insuordination, conduct pre.udicial to the est interest of the service and asence without official leave& (etitioners failed to answer these charges& ollowing the investigations conducted ! the D8#' 6nvestigating #o++ittees, 'ecretar! #ario found petitioners guilt! as charged and ordered their i++ediate dis+issal fro+ the service& [:] :
(etitioners appealed the orders of 'ecretar! #ario to the erit '!ste+s (rotection Board '(B- and later to the #'#& 6n 199;, the #'# +odified the said orders of 'ecretar! #ario as follows< =>8R83R8, the #o++ission here! finds 8verdina Acosta guilt! of #onduct (re.udicial to the Best 6nterest of the 'ervice& 'he is here! +eted out the penalt! of si/ 0- +onths suspension without pa!& #onsidering the period of ti+e she was out of service, she is auto+aticall! reinstated to her for+er positions sic-& [;] ;
ollowing the denial of their +otion for reconsideration, petitioners ?uestioned the +atter efore the #ourt of Appeals& @he appellate court denied their petition for certiorari and suse?uent +otion for reconsideration& >ence, this petition& (etitioners su+it the following issues for our consideration< R8'(3)D8)@ #3R@ 3 A((8A5' %R683'5C 8RR8D =>8) 6@ A6R8D @>8 A''A658D R8'35@63)' 3 @>8 #665 '8R6#8 #36''63) @>A@ =R3)%5C (8)A568D (8@6@63)8R' =>3'8 3)5C E38)'8E =A' @3 8F8R#6'8 @>86R #3)'6@@63)A5 R6%>@ @3 (8A#8AB5C A''8B58 A)D (8@6@63) @>8 %38R)8)@ 3R R8DR8'' 3 %R68A)#8'& R8'(3)D8)@ #3CR@ 3 A((8A5' %R683'5C 8RR8D =>8) 6@ A6R8D @>8 A''A658D R8'35@63)' 3 @>8 #665 '8R6#8 #36''63) @>A@ =R3)%5C D8)68D (8@6@63)8R' @>86R R6%>@ @3 BA#G=A%8'& @his petition is not i+pressed with +erit& (etitioners do not den! their asence fro+ work nor the fact that said asences were due to their participation in the +ass actions at the 5iwasang Bonifacio& >owever, the! contend that their participation in the +ass actions was an %
5
e/ercise of their constitutional rights to peaceal! asse+le and petition the govern+ent for redress of grievances& (etitioners likewise +aintain that the! never went on strike ecause the! never sought to secure changes or +odification of the ter+s and conditions of their e+plo!+ent& (etitionersH contentions are without +erit& @he character and legalit! of the +ass actions which the! participated in have een passed upon ! this #ourt as earl! as 1994 in Manila Public School Teachers' Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio, Jr. [0] wherein we ruled that Ethese H+ass actionsH were to all intents and purposes a strikeI the! constituted a concerted and unauthoriJed stoppage of, or asence fro+, work which it was the teachersH sworn dut! to perfor+, undertaken for essentiall! econo+ic reasons&E [7] 6n Bangalisan v& #ourt of Appeals , ["] we added that< 0
7
"
6t is an undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that petitionersH purpose was to realiJe their de+ands ! withholding their services& @he fact that the conventional ter+ EstrikeE was not used ! the striking e+plo!ees to descrie their co++on course of action is inconse?uential, since the sustance of the situation, and not its appearance, will e dee+ed to e controlling& @he ailit! to strike is not essential to the right of association& 6n the asence of statute, pulic e+plo!ees do not have the right to engage in concerted work stoppages for an! purpose& urther, herein petitioners, e/cept ariano, are eing penaliJed not ecause the! e/ercised their right of peaceale asse+l! and petition for redress of grievances ut ecause of their successive unauthoriJed and unilateral asences which produced adverse effects upon their students for whose education the! are responsile& @he actuations of petitioners definitel! constituted conduct pre.udicial to the est interest of the service, punishale under the #ivil 'ervice law, rules and regulations& As aptl! stated ! the 'olicitor %eneral, E6t is not the e/ercise ! the petitioners of their constitutional right to peaceal! asse+le that was punished, ut the +anner in which the! e/ercised such right which
7
resulted in the te+porar! stoppage or disruption of pulic service and classes in various pulic schools in etro anila& or, indeed, there are efficient and non$disruptive avenues, other than the +ass actions in ?uestion, where! petitioners could petition the govern+ent for redress of grievances&E 6t ears stressing that suspension of pulic services, however te+porar!, will inevital! derail services to the pulic, which is one of the reasons wh! the right to strike is denied govern+ent e+plo!ees& 6t +a! e conceded that the petitioners had valid grievances and nole intentions in staging the E+ass actions,E ut that will not .ustif! their asences to the pre.udice of innocent school children& @heir righteous indignation does not legaliJe an illegal work stoppage& [9] 9
6n acinto v& #ourt of Appeals, [14] De la #ruJ v& #ourt of Appeals, [11] and Alipat v& #ourt of Appeals, [12] we upheld our rulings in ('@A and Bangalisan. #onsidering the factual circu+stances of this case and the doctrine of stare decisis to which we consistentl! adhere, we find no co+pelling reason to deviate fro+ our earlier rulings in these related cases& 14
11
12
Anent the second issue, petitioners invoke our state+ent in Bangalisan that pa!+ent of salaries corresponding to the period when an e+plo!ee is not allowed to work +a! e decreed if he is found innocent of the charges which caused his suspension and if his suspension is un.ustified& (etitioners cite #'# Resolution )o& 9*$102 and contend that the deter+ination of the #'# therein that not an iota of evidence was given to sustantiate the conclusion that the! participated in a EteacherHs strikeE a+ounted to a finding that the! were innocent of the charges filed against the+& As a general proposition, a pulic official is not entitled to an! co+pensation if he has not rendered an! service& [1*] =hile there are recogniJed instances when 1*
9
10
11
12
1C
ackwages +a! e awarded to a suspended or dis+issed pulic official who is later ordered reinstated, as pointed ! petitioners in citing Bangalisan, the factual circu+stances of the case at ar i+pel us to rule otherwise& (etitionersH reliance on #'# Resolution )o& 9*$102 is +isplaced& 'aid #'# resolution disposed of the appeals of el! 6larina, Adelaida Dela #ruJ, Alicia %alvo, )enita Alios and )erissa Aellanda& (etitioners were never parties to their appeals and, therefore, cannot cite #'# Resolution )o& 9*$102 in support of their contention& (etitioners also overlook the fact that although no evidence was presented to prove that 6larina, et al. participated in the +ass actions, the #'# e/plained that the deficienc! was cured ! their ad+issions during the hearings efore the '(B& [1:] ore i+portantl!, however, herein petitionersH clai+ of e/oneration is elied ! the deter+ination of the #'# that their participation in the +ass actions constituted conduct pre.udicial to the service& Being found liale for a lesser offense is not e?uivalent to e/oneration& [1;] 1:
1;
(etitioners also point out that fro+ the issuance of the orders of dis+issal ! 'ecretar! #ario to the +odification thereof ! the #'#, al+ost five ;- !ears elapsed& (etitioners argue that the period in e/cess of their preventive suspension and penalt! of si/ 0- +onths suspension a+ounted to un.ustified suspension for which an award of ackwages was proper pursuant to our rulings in Bautista v. Peralta [10] and Abellera v. City o Baguio & [17] 10
17
=e disagree& 6t will e recalled that in Jacinto, we upheld the legalit! of the i++ediate e/ecution of the dis+issal orders issued ! 'ecretar! #ario on the ground that under 'ection :72-, [1"] 'utitle A, @itle 6, Book of 8/ecutive 3rder )o& 292, otherwise known as the Ad+inistrative #ode of 19"7, the decision of a 1"
1%
15
1
17
1
depart+ent secretar! confir+ing the dis+issal of an e+plo!ee under his .urisdiction is e/ecutor! even pending appeal thereof& [19] 'ince dis+issal orders re+ain valid and effective until +odified or set aside, the intervening period during which an e+plo!ee is not per+itted to work cannot e argued as a+ounting to un.ustified suspension& 6n %loria v& #ourt of Appeals, [24] we further e/plained that< 19
24
(reventive suspension pending investigation, as alread! discussed, is not a penalt! ut onl! a +eans of enaling the disciplining authorit! to conduct an unha+pered investigation& 3n the other hand, preventive suspension pending appeal is actuall! punitive although it is in effect suse?uentl! considered illegal if respondent is e/onerated and the ad+inistrative decision finding hi+ guilt! is reversed& >ence, he should e reinstated with full pa! for the period of the suspension& @hus, K:7:- states that respondent Eshall e considered as under preventive suspension during the pendenc! of the appeal in the event he wins&E 3n the other hand, if his conviction is affir+ed, i&e& if he is not e/onerated, the period of his suspension eco+es part of the final penalt! of suspension or dis+issal& 21
[21]
(etitionersH reliance on aella v& #ourt of Appeals [22] is likewise unavailing& 6n that case, the petitioners therein i++ediatel! went to court to seek in.unctive relief against the D8#' ad+inistrative proceedings on the ground that the! were deprived of due process& @he trial court declared the ad+inistrative proceedings void and ordered the pa!+ent of ackwages to the petitioners therein& @he #ourt of Appeals then upheld the order of the trial court& 6n affir+ing oth the trial court and the #ourt of Appeals, we stated therein that< 22
/ / / Because the ad+inistrative proceedings involved in this case are void, no delin?uenc! or +isconduct +a! e i+puted to private respondents& oreover, the suspension or dis+issal +eted on the+ is aseless& (rivate respondents should, as a conse?uence, e reinstated 19
20
21
22
and awarded all +onetar! enefits that +a! have accrued to the+ during the period of their un.ustified suspension or dis+issal& / / / [2*] 2*
3n the other hand, in the case at ar, petitioners initiall! assailed the alleged non$oservance of due process ! the D8#' 6nvestigating #o++ittees onl! upon appeal to the '(B& 'ignificantl!, however, it has een our consistent ruling that an appeal is curative of an! supposed denial of due process& [2:] @hus, after full ventilation of their case efore the '(B and #'#, and later on efore the #ourt of Appeals, petitioners cannot now allege denial of due process to .ustif! their clai+ for ackwages& 2:
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is !"#$"!.
2C
2%
