EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175. July 28, 2009.]

VENANCIO INONOG, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY,

Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 135, Makati City,
respondent.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J : p

The present administrative case stemmed from the Sinumpaang Salaysay 1 of

Venancio P. Inonog, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on April 26,
2005, charging Judge Francisco B. Ibay of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 135,
Makati City with gross abuse of authority. The complaint involved an incident in the
Makati City Hall basement parking lot for which respondent judge cited complainant in
contempt of court because complainant parked his superior's vehicle at the parking
space reserved for respondent judge.
Respondent judge initiated the proceeding for indirect contempt by issuing an
order dated March 18, 2005 in Criminal Case Nos. 02-1320, 02-3046, 02-3168-69, and
03-392-393, entitled People v. Glenn Fernandez, et al., directing the complainant to
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. The said order read:
ORDER
For intentionally parking car with plate no. WDH 804 at the parking space
reserved for the undersigned Presiding Judge, thereby causing the delay in the
promulgation of the Decisions in the above-entitled cases driver Butch Inonog,
c/o Permit Division, this City, is hereby ordered to appear before this Court at
10:30 A.M., March 18, 2005 and show cause why he should not be cited for
Contempt for delaying the administration of justice.

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, 18 March 2005.

That same day, respondent judge issued another order, finding complainant
guilty of contempt. To quote from the second order: EacHCD

ORDER

For failure to appear of respondent Venancio Inonog alias Butch Inonog at

today's hearing and show cause why he should not be cited for contempt, the
Court finds him GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT, and hereby sentences him
to suffer imprisonment for a period of five (5) days and to pay a fined [sic] of
P1,000.00.
Let a warrant issue for his arrest furnishing copies thereof to the Director
General Philippine National Police, the Director of the National Bureau of
Investigation, and the Station Commander of Makati Police Station.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]
 SO ORDERED.
Makati City, 18 March 2005.

The relevant facts, culled from the records, follow:

Complainant alleged that he is the security-driver of the Chief of the Business
Permit Division of Makati City. According to complainant, at around 1:00 a.m. of March
18, 2005, he parked the vehicle that he drives for his boss in a vacant parking space at
the basement of the Makati City Hall because the slot where he usually parked was
already occupied. At the time, the parking slots at the basement of the Makati City Hall
were indicated only by numbers and not by names of officials to whom they were
assigned. Thereafter, complainant notified his superior that he will not be reporting for
work for the rest of that day, March 18, 2005, because he was not feeling well. Thus, he
left the vehicle in the said basement parking area and went home to Tanay, Rizal.
Later that morning, complainant received a call from his brother, also an
employee of the City Government of Makati, informing him that he should appear
before the sala of respondent judge at 10:30 a.m. to explain/show cause why he should
not be cited for contempt of court for parking his vehicle at the space reserved for
respondent judge. He was informed that the respondent judge blamed the usurpation of
the said parking space for the delay in the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case
Nos. 02-1320, 02-3046, 02-3168-69, and 03-392-393 scheduled at 8:00 a.m. of March
18, 2005 because the latter had a hard time looking for another parking space.
Complainant was also informed that if he failed to appear at the hearing, a warrant for
his arrest will be issued.
Complainant immediately left his home in Tanay to go to Makati City Hall even
though he was not feeling well. However, due to the distance involved and the time
consumed by using various modes of public transportation, he arrived there only at
around 1:00 p.m. He found out that by then he had already been adjudged guilty of
contempt of court by respondent judge for delaying in the administration of justice. He
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00). A warrant for his arrest was also issued. 2 cESDCa

On March 21, 2005, complainant through counsel filed an Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration and/or to Lift Order of Arrest, but said motion was denied.
Subsequently, complainant filed an Amended Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and/or
To Lift the Order of Arrest, attaching proof of payment of the fine in the amount of one
thousand pesos (P1,000.00). In his motions, complainant explained that he did not
know that the parking space was reserved for the respondent judge. He also begged for
forgiveness and promised not to repeat the incident. Acting on the said amended
motion, respondent judge issued an Order dated March 30, 2005 finding complainant's
explanation to be unsatisfactory. However, respondent judge modified his previous
order by deleting the sentence for imprisonment for five (5) days but the fine of
P1,000.00 was increased to P2,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same offense will be dealt with more severely. In compliance, complainant paid the
additional amount of P1,000.00 as fine.
Aggrieved by the said orders of respondent judge, complainant filed the instant
administrative complaint.
In his Comment dated June 10, 2005, respondent judge explained that on March
18, 2005, he proceeded to the court at around 7:00 a.m. to finalize the decision in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]
 Criminal Case Nos. 02-1320, 02-3046, 02-3168-69 and 03-392-393, all entitled People
v. Glenn Fernandez, et al., which were to be promulgated on the first hour of the same
day. Upon reaching his parking slot, he found complainant's vehicle parked there. As a
result, he had a hard time looking for his own parking space. Hence, the promulgation
of the decision was delayed.
According to respondent judge, complainant knew that the parking slot was
reserved for him because it bore his name. He emphasized that prior to the incident, he
already had his name indicated at the said slot precisely because there had been
previous occasions when other vehicles would occupy his parking space and he had
been forced to park at the public parking area.
Respondent judge added that he ordered the complainant to appear before him
for the hearing at 10:30 a.m. of March 18, 2005, but, complainant refused, thus, he
declared him in contempt of court.
Respondent judge also averred that he neither took advantage nor exercised
arbitrarily the power of the court as in fact, complainant was given a chance to be
represented by a counsel of his own choice and was given an opportunity to explain his
position which the latter seriously considered.
Respondent judge explained that his acts were brought about by his deep
concern with the disposition of the cases assigned to him within the prescribed period.
To accomplish this, he came to office at 7:00 a.m. and worked on his cases not only in
his office, but even at home. Respondent judge mentioned that he was able to dispose
349 cases leaving only 171 cases pending as of December 31, 2004. He pointed out
that he was able to further reduce his docket to 23 civil cases and 29 criminal cases as
of May 31, 2005. Thus, he ranked 3rd among judges in the RTC, Makati with respect to
disposition of cases. TaISEH

Respondent judge added that petty disturbances, like the incident involved in the
instant administrative complaint, were annoying to him since they interfered in the
performance of his judicial function. Nevertheless, he did not lose his objectivity, probity,
equanimity, integrity and impartiality and reacted to these incidents within the limits and
boundaries of the law and justice.
On November 15, 2005, the OCA made the following evaluation and
recommendation:
EVALUATION: This administrative complaint came about when Judge
Francisco B. Ibay cited complainant in contempt of court simply because the
latter parked his vehicle at the parking space served for him. In the exercise of
his contempt power, not only did respondent deny the complainant his right to be
heard but also convicted him in contempt of court based on a very loose and
flimsy reason.

Contempt of court has been defined as a defiance of the authority, justice

or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and
administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties
litigant or their witnesses during litigation (Halili vs. Court of Industrial Relations,
136 SCRA 57).

Under the Rules of Court, contempt is classified into direct and indirect.
Direct contempt, which is summary, is committed in the presence of or so near a
court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including
disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]
 sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when
lawfully required to do so (Section 1, Rule 71).

Indirect contempt, on the other hand, is not committed in the presence of

the court and can be punished only after notice and hearing (Zarate v. Balderian,
329 SCRA 558). Undoubtedly, Judge Ibay cited the complainant for indirect
contempt of court since the subject incident transpired not in the court's
presence.

In the instant case, there was no defiance of authority on the part of the
complainant when he parked his vehicle at the spot reserved for the respondent
judge. The incident is too flimsy to be a basis of a contempt proceedings. At
most, the act resulted to a minor inconvenience on the part of the respondent but
it was unlikely that it delayed the administration of justice. Besides, it was not
shown that complainant parked his vehicle at the spot intentionally to show
disrespect to Judge Ibay. Respondent Judge Ibay acted precipitously in citing
complainant in contempt of court in a manner which obviously smacks of
retaliation rather than upholding of the court's honor.
aTCADc

xxx xxx xxx

Assuming, without conceding, that the complainant had committed indirect

contempt of court, he was nonetheless entitled to be charged in writing and given
an opportunity to be heard by himself or counsel. Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules
of Court specifically outlines the procedural requisites before a person may be
punished for indirect contempt, thus: (1) a complaint in writing which may either
be a motion for contempt filed by a party or an order issued by the court requiring
a person to appear and explain his conduct; and, (2) an opportunity for the
person charged to appear and explain his conduct (Pacuribot v. Lim, Jr., 275
SCRA 543). Proceedings against persons charged with contempt of court are
commonly treated as criminal in nature, thus this mode of procedure should be
strictly followed.

Records failed to show that complainant was properly notified of Judge

Ibay's order directing the former to appear and explain why he should not be
cited in contempt of court. The hearing was set at 10:30 A.M. or only about two
and a half hours after respondent judge found that his parking space was
occupied. The lack of notice accounts for the complainant's failure to appear at
the hearing. Verily, complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit evidence in support of his defense.

xxx xxx xxx

RECOMMENDATION: In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted

to the Honorable Court our recommendations that this instant I.P.I. be
REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and Judge Francisco B. Ibay,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Makati City, be penalized to pay a FINE in the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA but deems it proper to impose a
penalty different from the OCA's recommendation.
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court prescribes the rules and procedure for indirect
contempt. Sections 3 and 4 of the said rule read as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]
 SEC. 3. 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 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 acts
may be punished for indirect contempt: IHTaCE

(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. . . .

SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. — Proceedings for indirect

contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt
was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent
to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. . . .

The phrase "improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct,

or degrade the administration of justice" is so broad and general that it encompasses
wide spectrum of acts that could constitute indirect contempt. However, the act of
complainant in parking his car in a slot allegedly reserved for respondent judge does
not fall under this category. There was no showing that he acted with malice and/or bad
faith or that he was improperly motivated to delay the proceedings of the court by
making use of the parking slot supposedly reserved for respondent judge. We cannot
also say that the said act of complainant constitutes disrespect to the dignity of the
court. In sum, the incident is too flimsy and inconsequential to be the basis of an indirect
contempt proceeding. EaHDcS

In Lu Ym v. Mahinay, 3 we held that an act, to be considered contemptuous, must

be clearly contrary or prohibited by the order of the Court. A person cannot, for
disobedience, be punished for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or required to
be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt or
uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required. Here, the act of
complainant is not contrary or clearly prohibited by an order of the court.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]
 in judicial proceedings as well as to uphold the administration of justice. The courts
must exercise the power of contempt for purposes that are impersonal because that
power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges but for the functions they exercise.
Thus, judges have, time and again, been enjoined to exercise their contempt power
judiciously, sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end in view of utilizing the same
for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or
vindication. 4 Respondent judge's act of unceremoniously citing complainant in
contempt is a clear evidence of his unjustified use of the authority vested upon him by
law.
Besides possessing the requisite learning in the law, a magistrate must exhibit
that hallmark of judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint which are
indispensable qualities of every judge. 5 Respondent judge himself has characterized
this incident as a "petty disturbance" and he should not have allowed himself to be
annoyed to a point that he would even waste valuable court time and resources on a
trivial matter.
As for the appropriate penalty to be imposed, we note that this is not the first time
respondent judge was charged with grave abuse of authority in connection with his
misuse of his contempt power. In A.M. No. RTJ-06-1972 entitled Panaligan v. Ibay, 6
the Court in its Decision dated June 21, 2006 resolved to impose a fine of P5,000.00 on
respondent judge for improperly citing therein complainant for contempt and ordering
his detention without sufficient legal basis. He was warned not to repeat the same or
similar offense, lest a more severe penalty shall be imposed. In Macrohon v. Ibay, 7
respondent judge was also found guilty of the same offense and ordered to pay a fine of
P25,000.00. In the recent case of Nuñez v. Ibay, 8 which involved a very similar incident
regarding inadvertent usurpation of respondent judge's parking slot, the Court likewise
found respondent judge guilty of grave abuse of authority for citing complainant therein
in contempt of court without legal basis. In Nuñez, we ordered respondent judge to pay
a fine in the amount of P40,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits, since
said respondent judge opted to avail of Optional Retirement under R.A. No. 910 (as
amended by R.A. No. 5095 and P.D. No. 1438) effective August 18, 2007. ACDIcS

Considering that this is not the first time that respondent judge committed the
same offense and in Nuñez, which had similar factual antecedents as the case at bar,
the Court already saw fit to impose upon him a fine in the amount of P40,000.00, it is
proper to impose on him the same penalty in this case.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Judge Francisco B. Ibay is
found guilty of grave abuse of authority. He is ordered to pay a FINE of Forty Thousand
Pesos (P40,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales,
Chico-Nazario, Nachura, Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., took no part. Participated as then Court Administrator.
Brion, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2025 [Link]