Blue Ribbon Committee v. Judge Majuducon[GR No. 136760, 07/29/03] Ponente: Ynares-Santiago J.

2 consolidated petitions: [July 29,2003] FACTS Aug 28, 1998. Senator Blas Ople filed SRN 157. - directing National Defense and Security, to conduct inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the charges of then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado that a group of active and retired military officers were organizing a coup detat to prevent the administration of then President Joseph Estrada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Aug 28, 1998. Senator Vicente Sotto III filed SRN 160. - directing appropriate Senate Committee to conduct inquiry, in aid of legislation, into alleged mismanagement of funds and investment portfolio of AFP-RSBS (Armed Forces Retirement and Separation Benefits System) Senate President referred SRNs to: a. Committee on Accountability of Public officers and Investigations [Blue Ribbon Committee] b. Committee on National Defense and Security In public hearing of Blue Ribbon Committee, appeared that AFP-RSBS purchased lot in GenSan {LOT X MR1160} forPhp10,000/sqm. In Deed of Sale, Registry of Deeds, purchase price: Php 3000/sqm. Blue Ribbon Committee services SUBPOENA to Atty. Flaviano, directing him to appear and testify. SUBPOENA: a writ commanding person to attend court under penalty for failure to do so. Atty. Flaviano refused. He filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction with prayer for temporary restraining order with the RTC of General Santos City, Branch 23,{docketed as SP Civil Case No. 496} Oct 21, 1998. RTC issued Temporary Restraining Order direction Committee to stop from proceeding with inquiry and sending subpoenas to witnesses from Region XI, specifically GenSan. Nov 5, 1998. The Committee filed motion to dismiss the petition. Grounds: a) lack of jurisdiction b) failure to state valid cause of action. Argued that Temporary Restraining Order= invalid, violated the rule against ex-parte issuance thereof, and it was unenforceable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Nov 11, 1998. RTC denied petition and granted writ or preliminary injunction. WRIT of PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: a court order that commands or prohibits an act that the court regards as essential to justice. Purpose prevent dissolution of plaintiffs rights, seek to prevent threatened wrong, further injury and irreparable harm and injustice. Phil. Star published a commentary regarding the action made by the Judge on this case. ISSUES a. Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion by Judge - when he dismissed motion to dismiss the petition for prohibition, and issued a writ of preliminary injunction. b. Whether or not Judge erred in convicting Sen. Pimentel of indirect Contempt of Court HELD There is grave abuse of discretion as when the assailed order is bereft from legal justification. No legal basis for issuing the resolution. Sen. Pimentel is not guilty of indirect contempt of court.

RATIO A. There was no legal basis for the issuance of the resolution by the Judge.

a. Principles of Separation of Powers Congress --- legislation Executive --- execution Judicial --- settlement of legal controversies When Committee served subpoena, it acted in pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid for legislation. (ArtVI, Sec 21, Consti) b. Respondent cited Bengzon v. Blue Ribbon Preliminary injunction may be issued in cases pending before administrative bodies such as the Ombudsman or Office of the Persecutor as long as the right to self-incrimination guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is in danger. -Bengzon does not apply in this case. -This case NO intended legislation involved; Offshoot of a speech by Senator Enrile. -Clear legislative purpose indicated in SRN 160. -Subject matter of inquiry was more within the province of the courts than the legislative. -Subpoena was served pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid for legislation. (Art VI, Sec 21,- C o n s t i ) -Issue has already been preempted before Committee came in. -Still pending with Office of Ombudsman. -Therefore, no court has acquired jurisdiction .B. Sen. Pimentel was not guilty of indirect contempt of court. The reasons for conviction were as follows: a. Causing the publication in Phil Star though it was sub judice i. Sen. Pimentel contends that he had no participation in the publication. ii. pursuant to press freedom. relevant to matters of public interest. b. Making derogatory remarks. The derogatory statement was that he showed gross ignorance of rules of law and procedure. not improper conduct. Does not impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. Necessary description to support a petition seeking the annulment of the order of the Judge. Spouses Bacar v. Judge De Guzman Jr. When law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if a judge does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. -Sen. Pimentel did not malign the trial court, rather expressed the violation of the basic principles of separation of powers. -Nazareno v. Barnes: purpose of court to punish for contempt: should not be personal. c. For making it appear than an admin case was filed against Judge for gross ignorance of law- Without legal basis. No complaint was instituted separate from petition for certiorari.