12 | Guerrero v.

Villamor
G.R. No. 82238-42 | Nov. 13,1989 | Fernan, C.J.

Note: Please see Additional Notes for other points noted in the A.M. case (A.M. No. RTJ-90-
483, decided in 1998). This case (G.R. No. 82238-42) focused on the contempt order issue of
the case; said Order was assailed via certiorari. The A.M. case provided a background on the
litigation between Mr. Carlos (client of complainant in this case) and Ms. Naval and is primarily
an administrative case filed against respondent judge for alleged serious misconduct,
ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, misfeasance, malfeasance and
neglect of duty.

Quick Summary/Keyword: A complaint was filed against respondent Judge in this case for
allegedly rendering an unjust judgement and citing petitioners in direct contempt of court for
the language the latter used in the filing of the civil suit for damages against him. The Court
annulled the contempt orders but at the same time also dismissed the charges against
respondent Judge for lack of evidence that he issued the assailed contempt order in bad faith
or out of malice.

Doctrine: Lawyers should bear in mind their basic duty "to observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and ...(to) insist on similar conduct by others."

Facts

● George D. Carlos (Mr. Carlos) filed a criminal case for Qualified Theft against one Gloria
Naval but this case, presided over by respondent Judge Adriano R. Villamor (Judge
Villamor) resulted in an acquittal.
● Mr. Carlos thereafter through his lawyer, Atty. Antonio T. Guerrero (Atty. Guerrero) filed
a suit for damages against Judge Villamor for allegedly rendering an unjust judgment.
● After receiving the complaint and summons, Judge Villamor, cited Mr. Carlos and Atty.
Guerrero in direct contempt of court and sentenced them both to imprisonment for five (5)
days and fined them ▒500.00 for “degrading the respect and dignity of the court through
the use of derogatory and contemptuous language before the court.”
● The alleged “derogatory and contemptuous language” were what Judge Villamor deems
to be “contemptuous language” in the complaint for damages.
● Mr. Carlos and Atty. Guerrero filed an instant petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction or restraining order to stop the coercive force of the contempt.

Issue/s and Resolution

1. W/N the language employed in the complaint in the suit for damages against Judge
Villamor is contemptuous

NO, the Court here agreed with the petitioners’ argument that the statements complained of are
not contemptuous. They are merely descriptive of the plaintiff's cause of action based on his
reaction what he perceived as a willful infliction of injury on him by therein defendant judge.
 2. W/N respondent Judge Villamor can cite Mr. Carlos and Atty. Guerrero in direct
contempt in the criminal case he was presiding over

NO, the petitioners cannot be cited in direct contempt of court because this may only be
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt proceedings
before the same. As the terms connote, the word direct" would relate to an act stemming
immediately from a source, cause or reason and thus, the rule under the law that it be done in
the presence of or so near a court or judge while "indirect" would signify an act done not straight
to the point and thus, legally speaking would pertain to acts done out or not in the presence of
the court.

Although the allegations in the complaint for damages criticized the wisdom of respondent
judge's act of dismissing the subject criminal cases, such criticism was directed to him when he
was no longer in the process of performing judicial functions in connection with the subject
criminal cases so as to constitute such criticisms as direct contempt of court.

The petitioners also could not be cited in indirect contempt since there is a glaring lack of
charge and hearing, as required under Sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, and in addition,
the contempt order was irregularly issued as an incident in a case which had long been
terminated.

However, the court reminded petitioner counsel that lawyers, on the other hand, should bear in
mind their basic duty "to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers and ...(to) insist on similar conduct by others."

Separate Opinions N/A

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Order of Direct
Contempt of Court dated December 11, 1987 is declared NULL and VOID. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued on March 22, 1988 is hereby made permanent. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Additional Notes: (A.M. RTJ 90-483)

The litigation between Mr. Castro and Ms. Naval stemmed from a complaint the latter filed
against the former for quieting of title. This case ended in a compromise agreement approved
by the court concerned. In the compromise agreement Mr. Castro agreed to deliver possession
of the property in question to Ms. Naval who, in turn, undertook to pay the former the sum of
P5,000.00 as purchase price. For reasons unknown, however, the judgment by compromise
remained dormant for five (5) years.
Around nine (9) years later, Ms. Naval filed a suit for the revival and enforcement of the
judgment in the above-mentioned civil case against Mr. Castro. The latter, in turn, filed the
criminal case for qualified theft against the former for allegedly gathering coconuts on the
disputed piece of land with her helpers. The criminal case was raffled to the sala of respondent
Judge Villamor.

Eventually, Judge Villamor rendered judgment in the criminal case acquitting Ms. Naval of the
charge and declared her to be the lawful owner/possessor of the land being disputed, and
ordered Mr. Carlos to vacate the same.This triggered the chain of events as set forth in the
“Facts” portion of this digest.

In this case, Judge Villamor avers that the improper contempt order was an error in judgment.
He also submitted a Manifestation of Supervening Supreme Court Decision which stated that
nowhere in the annulled contempt order of respondent Judge was it found that the same was
“rendered maliciously or with conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice.”

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court here agreed with the recommendation to dismiss the complaints against
respondent Judge. With regard to the charge of malfeasance, misfeasance, neglect of duty, or
misconduct, complainants have not established a prima facie case against respondent judge.

The charges of ignorance of the law and issuing an unjust judgment, deserve consideration,
since the direct contempt order of the respondent judge, under the attending circumstances it
was issued, appears to be clearly erroneous. However, administrative liability for ignorance of
the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment does not immediately arise from the
bare fact of a judge issuing a decision/resolution/order later adjudged to be erroneous.
Otherwise, perhaps no judge, however competent, honest or dedicated he may be, can ever
hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record.

For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of
the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but,
most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty,
hatred, or some other like motive.

In sum, there is no legal basis nor convincing evidence, to support the proposition that the
respondent judge, in issuing his controversial contempt order, acted in bad faith or with ill-will or
malice as to justify holding him liable for an error in judgment.