Baculi v Belen

VELASCO JR., J., 2012

Facts:
1. Case is an administrative complaint filed by Prosecutor (of Zambales) Jorge Baculi
against Judge Belen of Calamba., for gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct,
violation of RA 3019, grave abuse of authority, conduct prejudicial to interest of public
service, oppressive conduct, harassment, fraudulent/unjust decision, etc.
2. Background:
a. Baculi filed a qualified theft case, People v Azucena Capacete, at Belens
RTC branch, which Belen dismissed based on his finding that the crime
committed was not qualified theft but estafa.
b. In the MR, Baculi claimed that Belens decision was motivated by hatred, ill
will ,prejudice.
c. This was made the subject of indirect contempt proceedings, for which Belen
found Baculi guilty.
d. Belens findings (that Baculi was guilty of indirect contempt) was considered
by Baculi as immoral, unlawful, unjust, unconstitutional, etc., and is the
principal cause of action in one of the cases at bar (this involves several
cases against Belen). Baculis comments on Belens findings was later the
subject of DIRECT contempt proceedings, because Baculis language was,
for Belen, in violation of the decency and propriety of the judicial system.
e. In other words, nagaaway sila. Eventually, Belens 2 contempt decisions were
issued a writ of execution and warrant of arrest, which Baculi countered with
a complaint against Belen, alleging that Belen was unjust, oppressive, etc.
f. In sum: Baculi argues that Belen was unjust and that he was not afforded
due process in the contempt proceedings. Belen, on the other hand, argues
that the contempt proceedings were only because of the contemptuous
language which Baculi used. Belen also argues that an admin case cannot
be used to reverse his decisions as a judge.
g. In the meantime, there was another case with another prosecutor (Atty.
Comilang) who had the same issues as Baculi. In Comilangs case, Comilang
set a preliminary investigation without informing Belen, and Belen issued a
Show Cause Order as to why he, Comilang, should not be held in contempt.
h. In both Comilang and Baculis case, they both responded with reiterative
comments and motions to postpone cancel hearings (this will later be
important in showing that due process was afforded Baculi and Comilang).
Issue:
1. WON Belen acted beyond his authority in conducting the contempt proceedings
against Baculi and Comilang? No.
2. WON Belens conduct was justified? Yes.
Ratio:
1. Preliminarily, please note that the cases against Belen were investigated by the OCA
which found that a judges decisions cannot be reversed via an admin proceeding.
Nevertheless, OCA found Belen liable for having incorporated the indirect contempt

2.

3.

4.
5.
6.

7.

8.
9.

proceeding with the main case when the the contempt case should have proceeded
separately.
SC however found that while OCA was correct in saying that admin cases cannot
substitute for the lost judicial remedies when Belen issued decisions adverse to
Baculi and Comilang. Rule 71 of the ROC lays down the remedies from a judgment
in direct and indirect ontempt proceedings. Sec. 2. Remedy therefrom.The person
adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail
himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment
shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided such person files a
bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will
abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.
In indirect contempt proceedings, the Rules states: Sec. 11. Review of judgment or
final order; bond for stay.The judgment or final order of a court in a case of indirect
contempt may be appealed to the proper court as in criminal cases. But execution of
the judgment or final order shall not be suspended until a bond is filed by the person
adjudged in contempt, in an amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is
taken, conditioned that if the appeal be decided against him he will abide by and
perform the judgment or final order.
Belen was correct in saying that the judgments have become final and executory.
Baculi also failed to prove bad faith on the part of Belen. They have not presented
any credible evidence to support the allegations against Belen.
Baculia and Comilang should have adduced the necessary evidence to prove
bad faith. (IMPORTANT) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
following presumptions stand: (1) that official duty has been regularly
performed and (2) that a judge was acting in the lawful exercise of jurisdiction.
A judge cannot be held administratively liable for every wrong decision . all that is
expected is that he follow the rules to ensure a fair hearing. Not every error is
ignorance of the law. In the case at bar, Belen followed the proper procedure in citing
complaintant in contempt of court.
Under the ROC, indirect contempt proceedings may be filed either (a) motu proprios
by the court or (b) by a verified petition. The judge followed the rules in filing a
contempt proceedings motu proprio.
Baculi and Comilang were afforded the opportunity to present defense but they failed
to do so. Baculi blatantly refused to answer the charges against him. It cannot be
said that Belen did not afford Baculi the opportunity to be heard.