[G.R. No. 150274.

January 30, 2002]

IN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT HON. DATUMANONG

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 30 2002.

G.R. No. 150274(In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A.
Datumanong in the Latter's Capacity as Secretary of Dept. of Public Works & Highways,
Jimmie F. Tel-Equen.)

The issues involved in the instant case, G.R. No. 150274, which is a petition for contempt,
are different from the issues raised in G.R. No. 144694 entitled "Rudy P. Antonio, Rolando
D. Ramirez and Jimmie F. Tel-Equen vs. Hon. Francisco A. Villa, Hon. Gregorio Vigilar and
Omb. Task Force on Public Works & Highways".While in G.R.No. 150274, what is assailed is
the Memorandum Order dated October 5, 2001 issued by the Secretary of the Department
of Public Works and Highways, in G.R. No. 144694, petitioners are questioning the Decision
dated March 2, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals.Therefore, consolidation of these
cases is not in order.

Let this case, G.R. No. 150274, be returned to the Second Division where it was originally
assigned.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 150274 August 4, 2006

IN THE MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT HON. SIMEON A. DATUMANONG in

the latter’s capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways. JIMMIE
F. TEL-EQUEN, Petitioner,

DECISION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Petitioner Jimmie F. Tel-Equen, District Engineer of Mountain Province, DPWH Cordillera

Administrative Region, filed this present petition to cite the former Secretary Simeon A.
Datumanong of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) in contempt of court
for issuing Memorandum Order dated October 5, 2001 dismissing him from the service.

Facts:

 The Ombudsman Task Force on Public Works and Highways filed with the Office of
the Ombudsman an administrative complaint for dishonesty, falsification of official
documents, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of office rules and
regulations, and conduct prejudicial to the service against petitioner Tel-Equen and
several others.
 Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found
respondents guilty of dishonesty, falsification of public documents, misconduct and
 conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and ordered their dismissal
from the service
 After the denial of the motions for reconsideration, three petitions were filed before
this Court which were consolidated and referred to the Court of Appeals in light of
the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto where appeals from decisions of the Office of the
Ombudsman in administrative cases should be referred to the appellate court under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
 On March 2, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of
the Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman finding
petitioner and two co-accused guilty as charged and dismissed them from the service
while the other two respondents were exonerated from administrative liability for
lack of evidence.
 Petitioner, together with his two co-accused, appealed from the decision of the Court
of Appeals which was docketed as G.R. No. 144694. Meanwhile, while appeal was
still pending, Secretary Datumanong issued the assailed Memorandum Order to
dismissed from the service.
 The Order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Issue: Hence, the instant petition to cite Secretary Datumanong in contempt of court.

Petitiner arguments
- Petitioner contends that in issuing the Memorandum Order despite knowledge of the
pendency of G.R. No. 144694, Secretary Datumanong committed a contumacious
act, a gross and blatant display of abuse of discretion and an unlawful interference
with the proceedings before the Court, thereby directly or indirectly impeding,
obstructing and degrading the administration of justice, and pre-empting the Court’s
sole right to make a decision in accord with the evidence and law.

Ruling:
NO. Petition lacks merit.

 The power to declare a person in contempt of court and in dealing with him
accordingly is an inherent power lodged in courts of justice, to be used as a means
to protect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnity of the proceedings
therein, and the administration of justice from callous misbehavior, offensive
personalities, and contumacious refusal to comply with court orders. This contempt
power, however plenary it may seem, must be exercised judiciously and sparingly
with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction
and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication. It
should not be availed of unless necessary in the interest of justice.
 The issuance of the Memorandum Order by Secretary Datumanong was not a
contumacious conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade
the administration of justice.
 A conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness, bad faith or with deliberate intent
to cause injustice, which is not so in the case at bar.
 If it were otherwise, petitioner should have been dismissed immediately after the
Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman rendered its
decision on March 28, 1994. It was only after the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision on March 2, 2000 affirming the dismissal that Secretary Datumanong issued
the memorandum and after ascertaining that no injunction or restraining order was
issued by the Court.