Scribd
Upload
12 views

Digest Case

Yay

Uploaded by

jd08212023
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
12 views

Digest Case

Yay

Uploaded by

jd08212023
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. Nos. 100382-100385.

March 19, 1997 (Case Brief / Digest)

Title: Belen vs. Comilang

Facts:
Josef Albert S. Comilang, a State Prosecutor, was assigned to assist in the prosecution of
cases before the RTC of Calamba City under Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP)
Order No. 05-07 dated February 7, 2005. He informed Judge Medel Arnaldo Belen of his
unavailability on Thursdays due to inquest duties.

– February 21, 2005: Comilang moved to defer cases set for hearing on February 24, 2005.

– February 24, 2005: Judge Belen ordered Comilang to explain his absence and fined him
P500. Comilang filed an Explanation with Motion for Reconsideration and a Reiterative
Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with Early Resolution.

– May 30, 2005: Judge Belen issued an order for Comilang to explain derogatory claims in
his motion and ordered him to pay a P1,200 postponement fee.

– December 12, 2005: Judge Belen found Comilang in contempt and fined him P20,000.
Comilang’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 16, 2006.

– Comilang filed a petition in the CA for certiorari and prohibition with a TRO and
preliminary injunction against Judge Belen’s orders.

– April 24, 2006: CA issued a TRO which was later extended by a writ of preliminary
injunction.

Despite the CA’s injunction, Judge Belen pursued contempt charges against Comilang for
not filing a supersedeas bond and subpoenaed him for hearings.

– Comilang filed a motion to quash subpoenas and for the inhibition of Judge Belen, which
was denied. Comilang was fined P30,000 and sentenced to two days of imprisonment for
indirect contempt by Judge Belen.

Simultaneously, Comilang filed a complaint against Judge Belen before the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.

– June 26, 2012: The Court dismissed Belen from service for his actions.

Comilang also filed a separate petition for contempt before the CA, which found Judge Belen
guilty of indirect contempt on July 3, 2008, and imposed a P30,000 fine. Belen’s appeal was

© 2024 - batas.org | 1
G.R. Nos. 100382-100385. March 19, 1997 (Case Brief / Digest)

denied, prompting his petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
1. Whether Judge Belen was guilty of indirect contempt for actions contrary to the CA’s
injunction order.
2. Whether Belen was denied due process in the CA’s contempt proceedings.

Court’s Decision:
1. The Supreme Court held that Judge Belen was indeed guilty of contempt due to his
defiance of the CA’s injunction by enforcing orders against Comilang, as previously ruled in
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216. However, the procedural issue led to a different outcome.

2. The Supreme Court emphasized due process and found that the CA failed to consider
Belen’s Comment, despite its presence in the records, thus depriving him of his fundamental
right to due process. Accordingly, the Court annulled the CA’s decision.

Doctrine:
The doctrines established and highlighted are the importance of adhering to injunctions
from higher courts and the necessity of ensuring due process. Despite a substantive
disregard for a superior court’s order constituting contempt, procedural due process must
still be accorded to the accused in contempt proceedings.

Class Notes:
– Indirect contempt involves disobedience of court orders and procedural failure to afford
due process.
– Rule 71 of the Rules of Court governs contempt proceedings, emphasizing necessary
notice, opportunity to respond, and the importance of a hearing.
– The separation of administrative and criminal liabilities as discussed in the context of
Judge Belen’s actions.

Historical Background:
This case sits within the broader context of judicial discipline and accountability in the
Philippines. There is a heightened focus on the balance between judicial autonomy and
accountability, emphasizing procedural correctness alongside substantive judicial
obligations, consistent with escalating efforts to ensure judicial officers act within their
legal bounds.

© 2024 - batas.org | 2

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy