EN BANC
G.R. No. 213525, November 21, 2017
FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA) PROPER; COA REGIONAL OFFICE NO. VI-WESTERN VISAYAS; AUDIT GROUP LGS-B, PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE; AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ANTIQUE, Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
A party and its counsel who make offensive and disrespectful statements in their motion for reconsideration may be properly sanctioned for indirect contempt of court.
We hereby resolve the following submissions of the petitioner, namely: (a) Joint Explanation;1 (b) Manifestation with Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration;2 and (c) Second Motion for Reconsideration.3
To recall the antecedents, the Court issued a resolution on January 27, 2015 denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration4 on the following grounds, namely: (a) failure to comply with the rule on proof of service; (b) late filing; (c) failure to file a verified declaration under the Efficient Use of Paper Rule; and (d) failure to prove grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Commission on Audit (COA).
In the same resolution, however, the Court required the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to show cause why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court for using in the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated October 1, 2014 harsh and disrespectful language towards the Court; and further required Atty. Fortaleza to explain why he should not be disbarred, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration for its lack of merit; ORDERS the petitioner and its counsel, Atty. Eduardo S. Fortaleza, to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from notice why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court; and FURTHER DIRECTS Atty. Fortaleza to show cause in the same period why he should not be disbarred.In the Joint Explanation dated March 9, 2015, the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza, both now represented by former Senate President Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., have apologized for the statements made in the Motion for Reconsideration, but have stated nonetheless that they had been constrained to attach cut print-outs of registry receipt numbers because the Makati City Central Post Office (MCPO) stopped issuing registry receipts and had adopted an electronic system instead;6 that they thought that the Court, in mentioning proof of service, had been referring to the non-submission of the affidavit of service;7 that Atty. Fortaleza had been only lacking in finesse in the formulation of his submissions; that the petitioner honestly believed that it had faithfully complied with the requirements of the Rules of Court on the service of pleadings;8 and that because of time constraints Atty. Fortaleza had not been able to sufficiently go over the Motion for Reconsideration.9
SO ORDERED.5
Contempt of court has been defined as a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. In its broad sense, contempt is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due to such a body. In its restricted and more usual sense, contempt comprehends a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court. The phrase contempt of court is generic, embracing within its legal signification a variety of different acts.Bearing the foregoing exposition in mind, the Court felt impelled to require the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court for the offensive and disrespectful statements contained in their Motion for Reconsideration dated October 1, 2014,29 to wit:
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, and need not be specifically granted by statute. It lies at the core of the administration of a judicial system. Indeed, there ought to be no question that courts have the power by virtue of their very creation to impose silence, respect, and decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of pollution. The power to punish for contempt essentially exists for the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and for the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the courts, and, consequently, for the due administration of justice. The reason behind the power to punish for contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution; without such guarantee, the institution of the courts would be resting on a very shaky foundation.28 (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
xxxxThe Court subsequently observed in the resolution promulgated on January 27, 2015 as follows:
24. Second, with regard to the PROOF OF SERVICE required under Section 2(c), Rule 56 in relation to Section 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedures, as amended, even a perfunctory scrutiny of the present PETITION and its annexes would have yielded the observation that the last document attached to the PETITION is the AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE dated August 12, 2014, by Marcelino T. Pascua, Jr., xxx in compliance with Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, & 13, RULE 13 of the 1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. A copy of the AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE is attached hereto as ANNEX "B", and made an integral part hereof;
25. Apparently, the staff of the Justice-in-charge failed to verify the PETITION and its annexes up to its last page, thus, the erroneous finding that there were non-submission of the proof of service;
26. In turn, the same omission was hoisted upon the other members of this Honorable Court who took the observation from the office of the Justice-in-charge, to be the obtaining fact, when in truth and in fact, it is not;
27. There is therefore need for this Honorable Court to rectify its foregoing finding;30 (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
xxxx
The petitioner and its counsel thereby exhibited their plain inability to accept the ill consequences of their own shortcomings, and instead showed an unabashed propensity to readily lay blame on others like the Court and its Members. In doing so, they employed harsh and disrespectful language that accused the Court and its Members of ignorance and recklessness in the performance of their function of adjudication.Although the petitioner and Atty. Fortaleza are now apologizing for their offensive and disrespectful statements, they insist nonetheless that the statements arose from their honest belief of having complied with the rule on proof of service. They also attribute their procedural error to the supposed adoption by the MCPO of an electronic system in the processing of mail matter.
We do not tolerate such harsh and disrespectful language being uttered against the Court and its Members. We consider the accusatory language particularly offensive because it was unfounded and undeserved. As this resolution earlier clarifies, the petition for certiorari did not contain a proper affidavit of service. We do not need to rehash the clarification. Had the petitioner and its counsel been humbler to accept their self-inflicted situation and more contrite, they would have desisted from their harshness and disrespect towards the Court and its Members. Although we are not beyond error, we assure the petitioner and its counsel that our resolutions and determinations are arrived at or reached with much care and caution, aware that the lives, properties and rights of the litigants are always at stake. If there be errors, they would be unintended, and would be the result of human oversight. But in this instance the Court and its Members committed no error. The petition bore only cut reproductions of the supposed registry receipts, which even a mere "perfunctory scrutiny" would not pass as the original registry receipts required by the Rules of Court.31 (Bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
Section 3. Second motion for reconsideration. - The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en bane upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There is reconsideration "in the higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's declaration.A second motion for reconsideration, albeit prohibited, may be entertained in the higher interest of justice, such as when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous but also patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the moving party.
In the Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.
Endnotes:
** Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2519 dated November 21, 2017.
1Rollo, pp. 275-282.
2 Id. at 294-304.
3 Id. at 305-320.
4 Id. at 265-272.
5 Id. at 272.
6 Id. at 276-277.
7 Id. at 277.
8 Id. at 278.
9 Id. at 279.
10 Id. at 280.
11 G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633.
12Rollo, pp. 296-300.
13 Id. at 301.
14 Id. at 315.
15 Id. at 316.
16 Id. at 316-317.
17 Id. at 343-352.
18 Id. at 344.
19 Id. at 345-347.
20 Id. at 347.
21 Id. at 374
22 Id. at 348.
23 Id. at 348-349.
24 Id. at 349.
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 331.
28 Id. at 342-344.
29Rollo, pp. 229-245.
30 Id. at 238.
31 Id. at 271-272.
32 Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court pertinently provides:
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be published after charge and hearing. - After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:xxx xxx xxx
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;xxx xxx xxx
33Rollo, pp. 348-349.
34Mercado v. Security Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 160445, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 501, 518.
35Limbona v. Lee, G.R. No. 173290, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 452, 460-461; Province of Camarines Norte v. Province of Quezon, G.R. No. 80796, October 11, 2001, 367 SCRA 91, 106.
36Rodriguez v. Blancaflor, G.R. No. 190171, March 14, 2011, 645 SCRA 286, 292.
37Panolino v. Tajala, G.R. No. 183616, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 209, 315.
38Yu v. Tatad, G.R. No. 170979, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 421, 428.
39 G.R. No. 127596, September 24, 1998, 296 SCRA 38.
40 Id. at 53.