[G.R. No. 136760.

July 29, 2003]

THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COITTEE, !"#!"$"%&"' (y )&$
C*+)!,+%, SENATOR A-UILINO -. .IENTEL,
JR., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE B. AJA/UCON, .!"$)')%0 Ju'0"
o1 B!+%2* 23, R"0)o%+l T!)+l Cou!& o1 G"%"!+l S+%&o$ C)&y, +%'
ATT3. NILO J. 4LA5IANO,respondents.
[G.R. No. 136376. July 29, 2003]
A-UILINO -. .IENTEL, JR., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE
S. AJA/UCON, )% *)$ 2+#+2)&y +$ .!"$)')%0 Ju'0" o1 B!+%2*
23, R"0)o%+l T!)+l Cou!&, G"%"!+l S+%&o$ C)&y, respondent.
/ E C I S I O N
3NARES7SANTIAGO, J.8
For resolution are two consolidated petitions: (a) G.R. No.
136760, for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and preliminary injunction,
assailing the resolution dated November 11, 199 of !udge !ose "#
$ajaducon of the %egional &rial 'ourt of (eneral "antos 'ity, )ranch *+,
which denied the "enate )lue %ibbon 'ommittee,s motion to dismiss the
petition for prohibition, injunction with writ of preliminary injunction filed by
private respondent -tty# Nilo !# Flaviano. and (b) G.R. No. 138378, for review
of the resolution dated -pril 1/, 1999 of respondent !udge $ajaducon
declaring petitioner "enator -0uilino 1# 2imentel, !r# guilty of indirect
contempt of court#
&he antecedent facts are as follows:
G.R. No. 136760:
3n -ugust *, 199, "enator )las F# 3ple filed "enate %esolution No# 1/4
directing the 'ommittee on National 5efense and "ecurity to conduct an
in0uiry, in aid of legislation, into the charges of then 5efense "ecretary
3rlando $ercado that a group of active and retired military officers were
organi6ing a coup d,etat to prevent the administration of then 2resident
!oseph 7strada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the -rmed Forces of
the 2hilippines#
819
3n the same date, "enator :icente '# "otto ;;; also filed %esolution No#
1<=, >directing the appropriate senate committee to conduct an in0uiry, in aid
of legislation, into the alleged mismanagement of the funds and investment
portfolio of the -rmed Forces %etirement and "eparation )enefits "ystem
(-F2?%")") @@@#A
8*9
&he "enate 2resident referred the two resolutions to the 'ommittee on
-ccountability of 2ublic 3fficers and ;nvestigations ()lue %ibbon 'ommittee)
and the 'ommittee on National 5efense and "ecurity#
5uring the public hearings conducted by the "enate )lue %ibbon
'ommittee (hereafter called the 'ommittee), it appeared that the -F2?%")"
purchased a lot in (eneral "antos 'ity, designated as Bot C, $%?11<=, for
21=,/==#== per s0uare meter from private respondent -tty# Nilo !#
Flaviano# Dowever, the deed of sale filed with the %egister of 5eeds indicated
that the purchase price of the lot was only 2+,===#== per s0uare meter#
&he 'ommittee thereafter caused the service of a subpoena to respondent
-tty# Flaviano, directing him to appear and testify before it# %espondent
refused to appear at the hearing# ;nstead, he filed a petition for prohibition
and preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the
%egional &rial 'ourt of (eneral "antos 'ity, )ranch *+, which was docEeted
as "2 'ivil 'ase No# F9<#
3n 3ctober *1, 199, the trial court issued a &emporary %estraining 3rder
directing the 'ommittee >to '7-"7 and 57";"& from proceeding with the
in0uiry in 2#"# 1<= particularly in (eneral "antos 'ity andGor anywhere in
%egion C; or $anila on matters affecting the patentingGtitling and sale of Bot C,
$%?11<=?5 to -F2?%")",A and >from issuing subpoenas to witnesses from
%egion C;, particularly from (eneral "antos 'ity, pending the hearing of the
petition for prohibition and injunction#A
8+9
3n November /, 199, the 'ommittee filed a motion to dismiss the petition
on the grounds of (a) lacE of jurisdiction, and (b) failure to state a valid cause
of action# ;t further argued that the issuance of the &emporary %estraining
3rder was invalid for violating the rule against ex-parte issuance thereof. and
that the same was not enforceable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court#
3n November 11, 199, the trial court denied petitioner,s motion to
dismiss and granted the writ of preliminary injunction, thus:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion to dismiss is DENIED, and
the WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION is hee!" iss#ed a$ainst es%ondent& It
is en'oined (om en(o)in$ its s#!%oenas to %etitione in Re$ion *I to a%%ea and
testi(" !e(oe it in an" o( its in+#i" o in,esti$ation an"-hee in the Phi.i%%ines
e$adin$ the a)+#isition !" the AFP/RS0S o( Lot *, MR/1123/D, .o)ated in 4enea.
Santos Cit"& The !ond o( %etitione (i.ed on O)to!e 51, 1667, (o P833,333&33 (o the
TRO a.so se,es as his !ond in this in'#n)tion&
SO ORDERED&
9:;
Dence, the instant petition for certiorari which was docEeted as (#%# No#
1+<4<=, alleging that respondent !udge $ajaducon committed grave abuse of
discretion andGor acted without or in e@cess of jurisdiction when he:
;# 57N;75 27&;&;3N7%," $3&;3N &3 5;"$;"" &D7 27&;&;3N F3%
2%3D;);&;3N -N5 2%7B;$;N-%H ;N!IN'&;3N F;B75 )H 2%;:-&7
%7"23N57N&, -&&H# N;B3 !# FB-:;-N3, -(-;N"& &D7 27&;&;3N7% ;N "2#
';:;B '-"7 N3# F9<#
;;# ;""I75 (1) - &7$23%-%H %7"&%-;N;N( 3%57% 7C?2-%&7 F3% -
27%;35 3F &J7N&H (*=) 5-H" -(-;N"& &D7 27&;&;3N7% 3N 3'&3)7%
*1, 199, -N5 (*) - J%;& 3F 2%7B;$;N-%H ;N!IN'&;3N 3N N3:7$)7%
11, 199 7N!3;N;N( &D7 27&;&;3N7% F%3$ 7NF3%';N( ;&"
"I)237N-" &3 2%;:-&7 %7"23N7N& ;N %7(;3N C;#
;;;# -22B;75 &D7 %IB;N( 3F )7N(K3N :"# "7N-&7 )BI7 %;))3N ;N
(%-N&;N( ;N!IN'&;:7 %7B;7F &3 2%;:-&7 %7"23N57N&#
8/9
G.R. No. 138378:
3n !anuary 1+, 1999, the newspaper, &he 2hilippine "tar published a
news report on the filing by the 'ommittee with this 'ourt of the petition
for certiorari which was docEeted as (#%# No# 1+<4<=# &he news report
0uoted portions of the petition filed by the 'ommittee, alleging that %egional
&rial 'ourt !udge $ajaducon was guilty of gross ignorance of the rules and
procedures when he issued the temporary restraining order and the writ of
preliminary injunction because, under the principle of separation of powers,
courts cannot interfere with the e@ercise by the legislature of its authority to
conduct investigations in aid of legislation#
8<9
%eacting to the aforesaid news report, respondent !udge $ajaducon motu
proprio initiated a charge for indirect contempt of court against "enator
-0uilino 1# 2imentel, !r#, news reporter 2erseus 7cheminada, 2hilippine "tar
publisher $a@imo "oliven, editor?in?chief %amon !# Farolan, and e@ecutive
editor )obby (# dela 'ru6, which was docEeted as "pecial 'ivil 'ase No#
F9<# !udge $ajaducon averred that the news report created in the minds of
the reader the impression that he violated the separation of powers clause of
the 'onstitution and that he was guilty of gross ignorance of the rules and
procedures#
-fter the respondents submitted their respective answers, a decision was
rendered on -pril 1/, 1999 finding petitioner 2imentel guilty of indirect
contempt#
Dence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:
;# &D7 7C2%7"";3N >(%3"" ;(N3%-N'7 3F &D7 %IB7" 3F 2%3'75I%7A
3% >(%3"" ;(N3%-N'7 3F &D7 B-JA ;N %7F7%7N'7 &3 &D7
%7"23N57N&," 7C?2-%&7 ;""I-N'7 3F ;N!IN'&;:7 %7B;7F ;" N3&
27!3%-&;:7 -" &3 '3N"&;&I&7 - (%3IN5 F3% ;N5;%7'& '3N&7$2&#
;;# &D;" D3N3%-)B7 '3I%& ;&"7BF I"7" >(%3"" ;(N3%-N'7 3F &D7
B-JA -N5 3&D7% 7C2%7"";3N" 3F ";$;B-% F3%'7FIB ;$23%& ;N
57"'%;);N( (%3"" -N5 2-B2-)B7 7%%3%" 3F !I5(7"#
;;;# )H I2D3B5;N( D;" '3N&7$2& 'D-%(7 -(-;N"& &D7 27&;&;3N7%,
&D7 %7"23N57N& !I5(7 D-", ;N 7FF7'&, 2%77$2&75 &D;"
D3N3%-)B7 '3I%& ;N %7"3B:;N( &D7 ;""I7" %-;"75 -(-;N"& D;$ ;N
(#%# N3# 1+<4<=#
;:# &D7 2I)B;'-&;3N )H 2D;B;22;N7 "&-% 3F &D7 )BI7 %;))3N 27&;&;3N
;N (#%# N3# 1+<4<=, 3% 7C'7%2&" &D7%73F J-" - B7(;&;$-&7
7C7%';"7 3F F%7753$ 3F 7C2%7"";3N -N5 3F &D7 2%7""#
&he two petitions, namely, (#%# No# 1+<4<= and (#%# No# 1++4, were
ordered consolidated on 5ecember 11, *===#
&he issues for resolution in these joint petitions are: (a) whether or not
respondent !udge !ose $ajaducon committed grave abuse of discretion when
he dismissed petitioner,s motion to dismiss the petition for prohibition and
issued the writ of preliminary injunction. and (b) whether or not respondent
!udge erred in convicting petitioner 2imentel of indirect contempt of court#
3n the first issue, petitioner 'ommittee contends that courts have no
jurisdiction to restrain 'ongress from performing its constitutionally vested
function to conduct investigations in aid of legislation, following the principle of
separation of powers# $oreover, the petition filed by respondent Flaviano
before the trial court failed to state a cause of action considering that the
legislative in0uiry did not deal with the issuance of the patent and title to Bot C,
$%?11<=?5 in the name of -F2?%")", which is well within the court,s
jurisdiction, but with the anomaly in the purchase thereof, which falls s0uarely
within the ambit of "enate %esolutions Nos# 1/4
849
and 1<=#
89
3n the other hand, respondent Flaviano contends that the trial court may
properly intervene into investigations by 'ongress pursuant to the power of
judicial review vested in it by the 'onstitution# De avers that he has a valid
cause of action to file the petition for prohibition considering that the
'ommittee,s investigation will delve into the validity of the patenting and titling
of Bot C, $%?11<=?5 which, as admitted by petitioner, falls within the
competence of judicial courts# ;n fact, the validity of the purchase by -F2?
%")" of the subject lot is already the subject of a pending action before the
%egional &rial 'ourt of (eneral "antos 'ity and the 3mbudsman of
$indanao# Finally, he cites the case of Bengzon v. Senate Blue Rion
!ommittee,
899
and argues that preliminary injunction may issue in cases
pending before administrative bodies such as the 3mbudsman or the 3ffice of
the 2rosecutor as long as the right to self?incrimination guaranteed by the )ill
of %ights is in danger# Furthermore, an information against him has been filed
with the "andiganbayan#
Je find for petitioner# &here is grave abuse of discretion when the
respondent acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the
e@ercise of his judgment, as when the assailed order is bereft of any factual
and legal justification#
81=9
;n this case, the assailed resolution of respondent
!udge $ajaducon was issued without legal basis#
&he principle of separation of powers essentially means that legislation
belongs to 'ongress, e@ecution to the 7@ecutive, and settlement of legal
controversies to the !udiciary# 7ach is prevented from invading the domain of
the others#
8119
Jhen the "enate )lue %ibbon 'ommittee served subpoena on
respondent Flaviano to appear and testify before it in connection with its
investigation of the alleged misuse and mismanagement of the -F2?%")"
funds, it did so pursuant to its authority to conduct in0uiries in aid of
legislation# &his is clearly provided in -rticle :;, "ection *1 of the 'onstitution,
thus:
The Senate o the Ho#se o( Re%esentati,es o an" o( its es%e)ti,e )ommittees ma"
)ond#)t in+#iies in aid o( .e$is.ation in a))odan)e -ith its d#." %#!.ished #.es o(
%o)ed#e& The i$hts o( %esons a%%eain$ in o a((e)ted !" s#)h in+#iies sha.. !e
es%e)ted&
Dence, the %egional &rial 'ourt of (eneral "antos 'ity, or any court for
that matter, had no authority to prohibit the 'ommittee from re0uiring
respondent to appear and testify before it#
&he ruling in Bengzon, cited by respondent, does not apply in this
case# Je agree with petitioner 'ommittee that the factual circumstances
therein are different from those in the case at bar# ;n Bengzon, no intended
legislation was involved and the subject matter of the in0uiry was more within
the province of the courts rather than of the legislature# $ore specifically, the
investigation in the said case was an offshoot of the privilege speech of then
"enator 7nrile, who urged the "enate to looE into a possible violation of the
-nti?(raft and 'orrupt 2ractices -ct by the relatives of then 2resident
'ora6on -0uino, particularly $r# %icardo Bopa, in connection with the alleged
sale of +< to +9 corporations belonging to )enjamin %omualde6# 3n the other
hand, there was in this case a clear legislative purpose, as stated in "enate
%esolution No# 1<=, and the appropriate "enate 'ommittee was directed to
looE into the reported misuse and mismanagement of the -F2?%")" funds,
with the intention of enacting appropriate legislation to protect the rights and
interests of the officers and members of the -rmed Forces of the
2hilippines# Further, in Bengzon, the validity of the sale of %omualde6,s
corporations was pending with the "andiganbayan when the "enate )lue
%ibbon 'ommittee decided to conduct its investigation# ;n short, the issue
had already been pre?empted by the court#
;n the instant case, the complaint against respondent Flaviano regarding
the anomaly in the sale of Bot C, $%?11<= was still pending before the 3ffice
of the 3mbudsman when the 'ommittee served subpoena on him# ;n other
words, no court had ac0uired jurisdiction over the matter# &hus, there was as
yet no encroachment by the legislature into the e@clusive jurisdiction of
another branch of the government# 'learly, there was no basis for the
respondent !udge to apply the ruling in Bengzon. Dence, the denial of
petitioner,s motion to dismiss the petition for prohibition amounted to grave
abuse of discretion#
;n (#%# No# 1++4, petitioner, "enator -0uilino 2imentel, !r#, contends
that respondent judge erred in finding him, as representative of the
'ommittee, guilty of indirect contempt of court under %ule 41, "ection +(d) of
the 1994 %ules of 'ivil 2rocedure# -ccording to 2imentel, the phrase >gross
ignorance of the rules of law and procedure,A which the 'ommittee used in the
petition, is not depreciatory, but merely a description of normal usage in
petitions where the acts of lower courts are challenged before higher judicial
bodies# ;n fact, this 'ourt often uses the phrase in its decisions to describe
judges who commit gross and palpable mistaEes in their interpretation and
application of the law# 2etitioner further maintains that when the 'ommittee
used the phrase, it did so without malice# %ather, it was only to stress the
unfamiliarity of or disregard by the respondent !udge of a basic rule of
procedure, and to buttress its arguments in support of its petition for certiorari#
2etitioner 2imentel also contends that he had no participation in the
publication in the 2hilippine "tar of e@cerpts from the 'ommittee,s petition for
certiorari# 7ven assumingarguen"o that it was within his control, he pointed
out that he could not have prevented the editors and writers of the newspaper
from publishing the same, lest he violate their constitutional right of free
e@pression# ;ndeed, the report by the 2hilippine "tar of the filing of the
petition and the reproduction of its contents was a legitimate e@ercise of press
freedom#
%espondent !udge counters that 2imentel was guilty of indirect contempt
of court, #ir$t% for causing the publication of the 'ommittee,s petition in the
2hilippine "tar notwithstanding that the same was $u &u"ice' $econ" , for
maEing derogatory remarEs in the petition itself which affected the honor and
integrity of the respondent judge and degraded the administration of justice.
and t(ir" , for maEing it appear that an administrative complaint was filed
against respondent !udge for gross ignorance of the law# &hese, he said,
constituted malicious and false report which obstructed the administration of
justice#
%ule 41, "ection +(d) of the 1994 %ules of 'ivil 2rocedure provides:
Se)tion <& Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. = A(te a )ha$e
in -itin$ has !een (i.ed, and an o%%ot#nit" $i,en to the es%ondent to )omment
theeon -ithin s#)h %eiod as ma" !e (i>ed !" the )o#t and to !e head !" himse.( o
)o#nse., a %eson $#i.t" o( an" o( the (o..o-in$ a)ts ma" !e %#nished (o indie)t
)ontem%t?
@ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @
d@ An" im%o%e )ond#)t tendin$, die)t." o indie)t.", to im%ede, o!st#)t, o
de$ade the administation o( '#sti)eA > > >&
-fter deliberating on the parties, arguments, we find that petitioner
2imentel is not guilty of improper conduct which obstructs or degrades the
administration of justice#
:erily, it does not appear that 2imentel caused the publication in the
2hilippine "tar of the fact of filing of the petition for certiorari by the 'ommittee
and the reproduction of e@cerpts thereof# De had no right to choose which
news articles will see print in the newspaper# %ather, it is the publisher thereof
which decides which news events will be reported in the broadsheet# ;n doing
so, it is allowed >the widest latitude of choice as to what items should see the
light of day so long as they are relevant to a matter of public interest,A
pursuant to its right of press freedom#
81*9
%espondent !udge,s allegation that petitioner made it appear that an
administrative complaint was filed against him is without basis# From a careful
perusal of the records, it appears that while the 'ommittee prayed for the
imposition of administrative sanctions against respondent !udge $ajaducon
for gross ignorance of the law, no formal administrative complaint was
instituted separately from the petition for certiorari#
Finally, the statement that respondent !udge was grossly ignorant of the
rules of law and procedure does not constitute improper conduct that tends to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice# -s correctly argued
by petitioner, the phrase >gross ignorance of the rules of law and procedureA is
ordinarily found in administrative complaints and is a necessary description to
support a petition which seeEs the annulment of an order of a judge wherein
basic legal principles are disregarded#
;n Spou$e$ Bacar v. )u"ge *e Guzman% )r.,
81+9
it was held that when the law
is so elementary, not to Enow it or to act as if a judge does not Enow it,
constitutes gross ignorance of the law# ;n this case, there was no showing
that petitioner 2imentel, as representative of the 'ommittee, used the phrase
to malign the trial court# %ather, it was used to e@press what he believed as a
violation of the basic principle of separation of powers#
;n this connection, it bears stressing that the power to declare a person in
contempt of court must be e@ercised on the preservative, not vindictive
principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment#
81F9
&his
was aptly e@pressed in the case of Nazareno v. Barne$:
81/9
A '#d$e, as a %#!.i) se,ant, sho#.d not !e so thin/sBinned o sensiti,e as to (ee. h#t
o o((ended i( a )itiCen e>%esses an honest o%inion a!o#t him -hi)h ma" not
a.to$ethe !e (.attein$ to him& A(te a.., -hat mattes is that a '#d$e %e(oms his
d#ties in a))odan)e -ith the di)tates o( his )ons)ien)e and the .i$ht that 4od has
$i,en him& A '#d$e sho#.d ne,e a..o- himse.( to !e mo,ed !" %ide, %e'#di)e,
%assion, o %ettiness in the %e(oman)e o( his d#ties& He sho#.d a.-a"s !ea in mind
that the %o-e o( the )o#t to %#nish (o )ontem%t sho#.d !e e>e)ised (o %#%oses
that ae im%esona., !e)a#se that %o-e is intended as a sa(e$#ad not (o the '#d$es
as %esons !#t (o the (#n)tions that the" e>e)ise&
9HERE4ORE, in view of the foregoing, the petitions docEeted as (#%#
Nos# 1+<4<= and 1++4 are (%-N&75# &he resolution of the %egional &rial
'ourt of (eneral "antos 'ity, )ranch *+, in "pecial 'ivil 'ase No# F9< dated
November 11, 199, which denied the "enate )lue %ibbon 'ommittee,s
motion to dismiss, is %7:7%"75 and "7& -";57# &he Jrit of 2reliminary
;njunction issued by the trial court on November 11, 199 is
5;""3B:75# &he resolution dated -pril 1/, 1999, which declared "enator
-0uilino 1# 2imentel, !r# guilty of indirect contempt of court, is %7:7%"75
and "7& -";57# &he petition for indirect contempt is ordered 5;"$;""75#
SO OR/ERE/.