Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comilang vs. Belen
Comilang vs. Belen
vs
MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN,
June 26, 2012
JUDGE
Judge Belen issued his Order in ("Estacio Case") requiring him to (1)
explain why Prosecutor Comilang did not inform the court of his
previously-scheduled preliminary investigation and (2) pay a fine of
P500.00 for the cancellation of all the scheduled hearings.
State Prosecutor Comilang filed with the (CA) a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ
of preliminary injunction assailing Judge Belens Order and Decision in
the Estacio Case.
ISSUE:
-
HELD:
Yes. Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued by the CA
enjoining the implementation of his May 30, 2005 Order and December
12, 2005 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 94069.
A single act may offend against two or more distinct and related
provisions of law and thus give rise to criminal as well as
administrative liability.6 A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 was the administrative
aspect while the instant case is the criminal facet of Judge Belens act
of issuing the Orders dated September 6, 2007 and September 26,
2007. Both proceedings are distinct and independent from the other
such that the disposition in one case does not inevitably govern the
resolution of the other case/s and vice versa.
Nonetheless, the Court stands by its pronouncement in A.M. No. RTJ-102216 that the subject act of Judge Belen was contemptuous, for the
reason that in requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his nonfiling of a supersedeas bond, in issuing subpoenas to compel his
attendance before court hearings relative to the contempt
proceedings, and finally, in finding him guilty of indirect contempt for
his non-compliance with the issued subpoenas, Judge Belen effectively
defeated the status quo which the writ of preliminary injunction aimed
to preserve. Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered
as mere errors of judgment that can be easily brushed aside. Obstinate
disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure amounts to
inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.
Likewise, citing State Prosecutor Comilang for indirect contempt
notwithstanding the effectivity of the CA-issued writ of injunction
demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad faith towards the former,
for which he must be held accountable and subjected to disciplinary
action.