75. Oclarit vs. Paderanga court, sentencing him to pay a fine of P11,000.
00 and also to serve one (1)
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
G.R. No. 139519. January 24, 2001.*
CONCHITO J. OCLARIT, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MAXIMO G.W.
PADERANGA, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, respondent.
Criminal Law; Contempt;  In the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, the Court introduced a new provision granting a remedy to a
person adjudged in direct contempt by any court.—Even then, an order of
direct contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemner
must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the
contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the Court
introduced a new provision granting a remedy to a person adjudged in direct
contempt by any court. Such person may not appeal therefrom, but may avail
himself of certiorari or prohibition. In such case, the execution of the
judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition provided
the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment
and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the
petition be decided against him.
Same;  Same; The salutary rule is that the power to punish for
contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and
on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment.—The lawyer’s
remarks explaining his position in the case under consideration do not
necessarily assume the level of contumely that justifies the court to exercise
the power of contempt. Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt.
This drastic power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious
behavior in facie curiae. The salutary rule is that the power to punish for
contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and
on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts must
exercise the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal,
because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons
but for the functions that they exercise.
SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Quimpo,  Borja,  Oclarit Law Offices for petitioner.
_______________
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
261
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001 261
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
PARDO, J.:
The Case
The case before the Court is a special civil action of certiorari assailing the
order1 of respondent judge declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt of
day in jail.
The Facts
Petitioner is a lawyer engaged in the private practice of law principally in the
City of Cagayan de Oro and the province of Misamis Oriental. 2
At times material hereto, petitioner was counsel for the plaintiffs in the
case entitled, spouses Gregorio and Pelegrina Babatido v. Elnora and
Teodoro Abella, et al., Civil Case No. 99-194, Regional Trial Court, Misamis
Oriental, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City. Judge Maximo G. W. Paderanga
was the presiding judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 38. 3
On June 1, 1999, the aforecited case was scheduled for continuation of
pre-trial before the lower court. The case was first heard on pre-trial on April
30, 1999. In that hearing, petitioner filed a motion to approve compromise
agreement entered into by the parties pointing out that the compromise
agreement was reached before a barangay captain.4 Counsel for the
defendants opposed the motion5 because the defendants were placed in a
disadvantageous condition, arguing that the case was before the court, not
before the barangay. The court ruled that the compromise agreement was
not before the barangay captain but before the court. The parties settled
before the barangay captain. At this point, petitioner informed the court that
the compromise agreement was signed and was
___________________
1
 In Civil Case No. 99-194, Order dated June 1, 1999, Petition, Annex “A,”
Rollo, p. 26.
2
 Petition, Prefatory Statement, Rollo, p. 4.
3
 Petition, p. 2, Rollo, p. 5.
4
 The correct term is punong barangay.
5
 Petition, Statement of Facts, Rollo, p. 7.
262
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
explaining further when the court told him repeatedly to “shut up.” Then
petitioner requested the court to stop shouting at him. The court rhetorically
asked: “why should the court precisely not cite you for contempt for doing
that,” that is, for settling the case before the barangay captain.6
Consequently, the presiding judge cited petitioner in contempt of court
and imposed on him a fine of P1,000.00. Petitioner remarked that the
presiding judge was becoming very arrogant. In reply to that, respondent
judge declared: “I will put you in jail. Get a policeman.” At that moment, the
court issued a verbal order holding petitioner for direct contempt of court and
sentencing petitioner to serve one (1) day in jail and to pay a fine of
P1,000.00. Petitioner indicated that he would challenge the ruling.7 Then,
respondent judge issued a “detention commitment” to the Jail Warden, City
Jail, Cagayan de Oro City, committing the person of petitioner Conchita J.
Oclarit for direct contempt.8
Page 1 of 3
 The next day, with petitioner in jail, he received a copy of the written order
declaring him in direct contempt of court and sentencing him to pay a fine of
P1,000.00 and also to serve one (1) day in jail. 9 He was released after
serving one (1) day in jail.10 Apparently, he also paid the fine of P1,000.00 11
On July 30, 1999, petitioner filed the instant petition. 12
The Issues
The questions presented are (1) whether petitioner was guilty of direct
contempt of court; (2) if guilty, may the respondent judge declare him guilty
by an order without stating the facts on which it is based and imposing upon
him the corresponding penalty; and
_________________
6
 Ibid., pp. 7-9, Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at p. 40.
7
 Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, 27-72, at pp. 63-66.
8
 Petition, Annex “C,” Rollo, p. 73.
9
 Petition, Annex “A,” Rollo, p. 26.
10
 Petition, Annex “E,” Rollo, p. 78.
11
 Comment, Solicitor General, Rollo, pp. 122-129, at p. 126.
12
 Filed by registered mail posted on July 30, 1999. Rollo, pp. 4-25. On
October 02, 2000, we gave due course to the petition (Rollo, pp. 130-131).
263
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001 263
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
finally (3) if the court could do so, is the order finding petitioner guilty of direct
contempt of court immediately executory?
The Court’s Ruling
In the first place, there was nothing contumacious (stubbornly or willfully
disobedient) in the submission to the court of a motion for approval of
compromise agreement reached before a barangay captain in a case
pending before the court. It is not required that a compromise agreement be
executed before the court. It may be executed before anyone or even among
the parties themselves and then submitted to the court for approval.
In the second place, the presiding judge must state expressly in the order
the facts constituting the contemptuous behavior of petitioner and declaring
him in direct contempt of court.
In this case, the court did not state the specific cause for declaring
petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court. Indeed, it would seem that the
court cited petitioner for direct contempt of court for submitting such
compromise agreement for approval though the compromise was reached
before a barangay captain.13 As we said, there is nothing contumacious in
such act. However, the impression of lawyers in the courtroom at that time
was that the presiding judge was irked because petitioner shouted back and
banged the table as petitioner charged the presiding judge with
arrogance.14 This incident is not recorded in the transcript, leaving us in doubt
if it occurred. It is apparent, however, that the presiding judge continuously
ordered petitioner to “shut up.”
Even then, an order of direct contempt is not immediately executory or
enforceable. The contemner must be afforded a reasonable remedy to
extricate or purge himself of the contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, the Court introduced a new provision granting a
remedy to a person adjudged in direct contempt by any court. Such person
may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of certiorari or prohibition. In
such case, the execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending
resolution of
________________
13
 Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at pp. 38-64.
14
 Compliance/Comment, Annexes “2” and “3,” Rollo, pp. 97-100.
264
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
such petition provided the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the
judgment should the petition be decided against him. 15
In fact, petitioner asked the court presided over by respondent judge to fix
a bail for his temporary liberty pending the filing of a petition for
certiorari.16 This written motion was filed on the first hour the very next day. It
was timely filed because the written order of contempt was issued only the
next day and given to petitioner when he was in jail.17 The respondent judge
did not act on the motion.18 By such inaction, respondent judge deprived
petitioner of an effective relief from an order of direct contempt of court. This
is a violation of the Rules on contempt of court. 19 Under Rule 65, 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended, petitioner had sixty (60) days within which to
file his petition.20
We find that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion in declaring
petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court, sentencing him to pay a fine of
P1,000.00 and to serve one day in jail. It was the respondent judge who first
shouted successively at petitioner to “shut up.” When petitioner persisted in
making his explanation, the court declared him in direct contempt, to the
extent of stating that the judge had “absolute power.” 21 The lawyer’s remarks
explaining his position in the case under consideration do not necessarily
assume the level of contumely that justifies the court to exercise the power of
contempt.22 Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic
power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in
facie curiae.23 The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt must
be exer-
___________________
15
 Rule 71, Sec. 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
16
 Petition, Annex “D,” Rollo, pp. 74-77.
17
 Petition, Rollo, pp. 4-25, at p. 17.
18
 Compliance/Comment, Rollo, pp. 92-94, at p. 93.
19
 Rule 71, Sec. 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
20
 Rule 65, Sec. 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
Page 2 of 3
 21
 Petition, Annex “B,” Rollo, pp. 27-72, at p. 63. © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
 Cf. People v. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, 994; 243 SCRA 64 [1995].
23
 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. 1, Sixth Revised Edition,
1997, p. 803; De Guia v. Guerrero, 186 SCRA 339 [1994].
265
VOL. 350, JANUARY 24, 2001 265
Oclarit vs. Paderanga
cised on the preservative, not vindictive principle,24 and on the corrective and
not retaliatory idea of punishment.25 The courts must exercise the power to
punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is
intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions
that they exercise.26
The Fallo
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court GRANTS the petition and renders judgment
declaring VOID the order finding petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court in
Civil Case No. 99-194, and sentencing him to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to
serve one (1) day in jail. The Court orders respondent judge to reimburse
petitioner the sum of P1,000.00, not out of the amount paid by petitioner to
the court but from his own funds. The Court regrets that petitioner had to
serve time in jail by a despotic act of respondent judge.
The Court orders the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, to file an
administrative charge against respondent Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga,
Regional Trial Judge, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, Branch 38,
Cagayan de Oro City, for gross misconduct and grave abuse of authority,
within fifteen (15) days from notice.
This decision is immediately executory.
Costs against respondent Judge.
SO ORDERED.
     Davide, Jr.  (C.J., Chairman), Puno,  Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago,
JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment declared void.
__________________
24
 Commissioner of Immigration v. Cloribel, 127 Phil. 716; 20 SCRA
1241 [1967].
25
 Nazareno v. Barnes, 220 Phil. 451, 463; 136 SCRA
57 [1985]; Pacuribot v. Lim, Jr., 341 Phil. 544, 548; 275 SCRA 543 [1997].
26
 Austria v. Masaquel, 127 Phil. 677, 690-691; 20 SCRA
1247 [1967]; Nazareno v. Barnes, supra, Note 25; Angeles v. Gernale,
Jr., 274 SCRA 10 [1997].
266
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Rama
Note.—The power to declare a person in contempt of court should be
exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. (Panado vs.
Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 110 [1998])
——o0o——

Page 3 of 3