KELLY KELLY R. WICKER and a nd ATTY. ATTY. ORLANDO A. RAYOS, petitioners, v s. HON. PAUL T. ARCANEL, as Presidin! "#d!e o$ t%e RTC, &a'ati, (ran)% *+, respondent. This is a petition petition for certiorari , certiorari , assailing the orders of respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel of the Regional Regional Trial Trial Court, finding petitioners guilty of direct contempt and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for five (! days and to pay a fine of P"##.##.
-a)ts $elly %ic&er, 'ith his 'ife %ynee ieppe and the Tectonics Asia Architects and )ngineering Co., *rought suit in the Regional Trial Court of +a&ati against the - )nterprises, /nc. and others, for the annulment of certain deeds *y 'hich a house and lot at -or*es Par&, 'hich the plaintiffs claimed they had purchased, purchased, 'as allegedly fraudulently titled in the name of the defendant - )nterprises and later sold *y the latter to co0defendant Jose Poe. The case, doc&eted as Civil Case 1o. "2#23, 'as assigned to 4ranch "52 formerly presided over *y Judge /gnacio /gnacio Capulong 'ho 'ho later 'as replaced replaced *y respondent respondent Judge Judge Paul Paul T. T. Arcangel. 6n 1ovem*er "3, "775, %ic&er8s counsel, Atty. 6rlando A. Rayos, filed a motion see&ing the inhi*ition of the respondent 9udge from from the consideration of the case . The motion alleged alleged in pertinent pertinent part: ". ; <. +eantime, Judge =/gnacio> Capulong 'ho had full grasp of this case 'as eased out of his station. /n one hearing, the Acting Presiding Judge had not yet reported to his station and in that set hearing, counsel for defendant - )nterprises, /nc. 'ho must have &no'n that ?is ?onor 'as not reporting did not li&e'ise appear 'hile other counsels 'ere present@ 5. Plaintiffs have information that the Acting Presiding Judge 'as personally recruited from the south *y Atty. 4en9amin antos andor his 'ife, Atty. 6felia Calcetas0antos, one time mem*er of the Judicial and 4ar Council, against 'hom plaintiff $elly R. %ic&er filed Administrative Case 1o. 5B7, and although said case 'as dismissed, nevertheless, plaintiffs feel that it 'as the reason for Atty. 6felia Calcetas0antos8 relief@ 2. Plaintiffs have reason to dou*t the partiality and integrity of ?is ?onor and to give a fighting chance for plaintiffs to prove their case, since this 'ill *e the last case to recover the partnership property, plaintiffs feel that ?is ?onor inhi*it himself and set this case for re0raDe@ . This move finds support in the Rules of Court and 9urisprudence that in the first instance that a litigant dou*ts the partiality and integrity of the Presiding Judge, he should should immediately move move for his inhi*ition. inhi*ition.
Considering the allegations to *e Emalicious, derogatory and contemptuous,E respondent 9udge ordered *oth counsel and client to appear *efore him on 1ovem*er <, "775 and to sho' cause 'hy they should not *e cited for contempt of court.E < /n a pleading entitled E6pposition to andor Comment to +otion to Cite for irect Contempt irected Against Plaintiff $elly R. %ic&er and his Counsel,E Atty. Rayos claimed that the allegations in the motion did not necessarily eFpress his vie's *ecause he merely signed the motion Ein a representative capacity, in other 'ords, 9ust la'yering,E for $elly %ic&er, 'ho said in a note to him that a Eyoung man possi*ly employed *y the CourtE had advised him to have the case re0raDed, 'hen the opposing counsel Atty. 4en9amin antos and the ne' 9udge *oth failed to come for a hearing, *ecause their a*sence 'as an indication that Atty. antos &ne' 'ho Ethe 9udge may *e and 'hen he 'ould appearE. -inding petitioners8 eFplanation unsatisfactory, respondent 9udge, in an order dated ecem*er 5, "775, held them guilty of direct contempt and sentenced each to suffer imprisonment for five (! days and to pay a fine of P"##.##.
Iss#e %hether or not respondent 9udge committed grave a*use of discretion in holding petitioners lia*le for direct contempt. $elly %ic&er and Atty. 6rlando A. Rayos argue that E'hen a person, impelled *y 9ustifia*le apprehension and acting in a respectful manner, as&s a 9udge to inhi*it himself from hearing his case, he does not there*y *ecome guilty of contempt.E /n his comment, respondent 9udge alleges that he too& over as Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of +a&ati, 4ranch "52 *y virtue of Administrative 6rder 1o. "2075 dated eptem*er <, "775 of this Court and not *ecause, as petitioners alleged, he 'as Epersonally recruited from the outhE *y Atty. antos andor his 'ife, Atty. 6felia Calcetas0antos;that Atty. Rayos8 claim that he 'as 9ust Ela'yeringE and acting as Ethe vehicle or mouthpiece of his clientE is untena*le *ecause his (Atty. Rayos8! duties to the court are more important than those 'hich he o'es to his client@ and that *y tendering their Eprofuse apologiesE in their motion for reconsideration of the ecem*er 5, "775 order, petitioners ac&no'ledged the falsity of their accusations against him;
SC R#/in! %hat is involved in this case is an instance of direct contempt, since it involves a pleading allegedly containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements su*mitted to the court or 9udge in 'hich the proceedings are pending. /t is eGuivalent to Emis*ehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or 9udge as to interrupt the proceedings *efore the sameE 'ithin the meaning of Rule B", H " of the Rules of Court and, therefore, direct contempt. /n case of indirect or constructive contempt, the contemnor may *e punished only E=a>fter charge in 'riting has *een filed, and an opportunity given to the accused to
*e heard *y himself or counsel,E 'hereas in case of direct contempt, the respondent may *e summarily ad9udged in contempt. The 9udgment in cases of indirect contempt is appeala*le, 'hereas in cases of direct contempt only 9udgments of contempt *y +TCs, +CTCs and +eTCs are appeala*le. The Court sustains Judge Arcangel8s finding that petitioners are guilty of contempt. A reading of the allegations in petitioners8 motion for inhi*ition leads to no other conclusion than that respondent 9udge 'as *eholden to the opposing counsel in the case, Atty. 4en9amin antos, to 'hom or to 'hose 'ife, the 9udge o'ed his transfer to the RTC of +a&ati, 'hich necessitated Eeasing outE the former 9udge to ma&e room for such transfer. These allegations are derogatory to the integrity and honor of respondent 9udge and constitute an un'arranted criticism of the administration of 9ustice in this country. They suggest that la'yers, if they are 'ell connected, can manipulate the assignment of 9udges to their advantage Atty. Rayos, ho'ever, cannot evade responsi*ility for the allegations in Guestion. As a la'yer, he is not 9ust an instrument of his client. 4ased on Canon ** of the Code of Professional Responsi*ility, Atty. Rayos *ears as much responsi*ility for the contemptuous allegations in the motion for inhi*ition as his client Atty. Rayos8 duty to the courts is not secondary to that of his client. The Code of Professional Responsi*ility en9oins him to E o0serve and 1aintain t%e respe)t d#e to t%e )o#rts and to 2#di)ia/ o3)ers and 4t o5 insist on si1i/ar )ond#)t 06 ot%ers 7and7 not 4t o5 attri0#te to a "#d!e 1otives not s#pported 06 t%e re)ord or %ave 1ateria/it6 to t%e )ase.E After the respondent 9udge had favora*ly responded to petitioners8 Eprofuse apologiesE and indicated that he 'ould let them off 'ith a fine, 'ithout any 9ail sentence, petitioners served on respondent 9udge a copy of their instant petition 'hich prayed in part that E Respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel be REVERTED to his former station. He simply cannot do in the RTC of a!ati "here more comple# cases are heared $sic% unli!e in Da&ao City .E /f nothing else, this personal attac& on the 9udge only serves to confirm the E contumacious attitude, a Iouting or arrogant *elligerenceE first evident in petitioners8 motion for inhi*ition *elying their protestations of good faith. 4e that as it may, the Court *elieves that consistent 'ith the rule that the po'er to cite for contempt must *e eFercised for preservative rather than vindictive principle 'e thin& that the 9ail sentence on petitioners may *e dispensed 'ith 'hile vindicating the dignity of the court. %?)R)-6R), the order of ecem*er 5, "775 is +6/-/) *y ))T/1 the sentence of imprisonment for five (! days and /1CR)A/1 the fine from P"##.## to P<##.## for each of the petitioners.
