G.R. NO.

128859, June 23, 2005

AIDA POBLETE AND HON. REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 272,
MARIKINA CITY, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND WILLIAM LU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS:
In the Court’s Decision[1] on the herein case dated 29 June 2004, the petition was dismissed on the ground that it had become moot and academic,
owing to the acquittal in 1999 of petitioner Aida Poblete in Criminal Case No. 95-700-MK by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina, Branch
272. The instant petition pertained to the grant of bail to Poblete, who had been charged with Estafa under paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal
Code, with private respondent William Lu as the private complainant.

As narrated in the Decision, it was only in 2004 that the Court learned of the acquittal of Poblete in 1999, after the transmittal by the Marikina City
RTC to this Court of the records of the said criminal case. Considering that the subject matter of the petition related to the grant of bail to Poblete,
this petition could have been immediately dismissed as far back as 1999, had the Court been informed of the acquittal of the petitioner.
Unfortunately, neither the petitioner nor private respondent bothered to inform the Court of the fact of acquittal. Hence, the Court resolved in its
Decision to direct the parties’ respective counsels, Atty. Roberto T. Neri for the petitioner, and Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro for the private respondent, to
explain why they should not be held liable for indirect contempt for such failure to inform the Court.[2]

Both counsels having availed of their right to be heard by adducing their respective explanations, the Court now proceeds to rule on the question of
indirect contempt. Atty. Balbastro argues that he could not be held liable for indirect contempt owing to his good faith and lack of intention to impede,
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.[3] On the other hand, Atty. Neri similarly invokes his lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade
the administration of justice, and adds that “due to extreme pressure of his work, occasioned by the numerous cases he has been handling . . . he
totally forgot, albeit unfortunate (sic), about the petition that he had filed in this case.”

RULING
YES. We are inclined to hold Atty. Neri, counsel for petitioner, to a higher standard of responsibility than Atty. Balbastro, counsel for the
private respondent. Indubitably, Atty. Balbastro could have immensely aided the Court had he promptly informed us of the acquittal of the case, yet
his was not the primary responsibility to undertake such action. The burden would lie on the party who instituted the action, the petitioner in this
case. Generally, it is the petitioner who bears greater interest in the resolution of a petition since it is such party who seeks remedial relief from a
standing lower court issuance.

Even worse, Atty. Neri filed before this Court a Notice of Change of Address which was dated on 20 October 1999, or just five (5) days after his client
was acquitted.[5] Certainly, Atty. Neri could not have already forgotten about his client’s acquittal just five days earlier, and was probably even still
flushed with the throes of victory. Indeed, under the ethical standards the Court requires lawyers to observe, Atty. Neri’s liability is patent. Under the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer is obliged to exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice,[7] and correspondingly, precluded from unduly delaying a case.[8] Under appropriate circumstances, these violations may
likewise constitute grounds for indirect contempt, as they are in this case.

Any improper conduct tending to impede the administration of justice is cause for punishment for indirect contempt.[9] A person adjudged guilty of
indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. Under the
circumstances, a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) would be appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Roberto T. Neri is hereby found GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and ordered to PAY A FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00) within ten (10) days from notice, or to suffer imprisonment of ten (10) days in case he fails to pay the fine