Deles v. Gellada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved petitioner Atty. Romulo A. Deles being found guilty of indirect contempt of court. This contempt stemmed from his participation in rallies and demonstrations held in close proximity to the Supreme Court and Halls of Justice. During these demonstrations, he carried placards and streamers bearing messages critical of specific judges and judicial bodies, including phrases like "Hoodlums in Robes" and "STOP Demolition of Farmers (sic) Beneficiaries Houses." Procedural History: The petitioner was initially meted a penalty of suspension and a fine by MTCC Judge Lorna P. Demonteverde. Subsequently, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Negros Occidental, presided over by Judge Pepito Gellada, affirmed the finding of indirect contempt and the corresponding penalty. The case reached the Supreme Court through a petition filed by Atty. Deles. The Petition: Petitioner Atty. Romulo A. Deles filed a Motion for Clemency Ad Cautelam with the Supreme Court. He prayed that the Court, acting as a court of equity, set aside the sentence of imprisonment for indirect contempt. In its place, he requested the imposition of a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for sixty (60) days, along with the original fine of P4,000.00. The respondent judges did not interpose objections, acknowledging the petitioner's apparent contrition and sincerity.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court, acting as a Court of Equity, may grant clemency and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for indirect contempt. Whether the penalty of suspension from the practice of law and a fine is a more appropriate penalty than imprisonment for indirect contempt in this case.
Ruling
The Motion for Clemency Ad Cautelam is GRANTED. The penalty of imprisonment of 20 days is SET ASIDE. In its stead, Atty. Romulo A. Deles is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of 60 days, which is immediately executory from receipt of this Resolution. The fine of P4,000.00 originally imposed stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of granting clemency and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment for indirect contempt: The Supreme Court granted the petitioner's Motion for Clemency Ad Cautelam. The Court, acting as a Court of Equity, considered the plea for clemency. The respondent judge, in his Comment, interposed no objection, stating that the lower court's judges have been vindicated and justice has been served with the affirmation of the indirect contempt committed by the petitioner. Furthermore, the respondent judge noted that the petitioner appeared to be contrite and sincere in his plea. This demonstrates the Court's willingness to temper justice with mercy under specific circumstances, particularly when the contemnor exhibits remorse and the underlying issues have been addressed or resolved. On the issue of the appropriateness of the penalty: The Supreme Court modified the penalty imposed by the RTC. Instead of the 20 days imprisonment for indirect contempt, the Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for a period of 60 days. This suspension is immediately executory. The fine of P4,000.00, originally imposed by the MTCC and affirmed by the RTC, was maintained. This modification reflects the Court's equitable consideration, balancing the need to punish the contumacious act with the petitioner's apparent contrition and the vindication of the judges involved. The Court effectively substituted a more rehabilitative and less severe penalty (suspension from practice) for a punitive one (imprisonment), while still imposing a financial penalty.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court may grant clemency and set aside a sentence of imprisonment for indirect contempt, opting instead for suspension from the practice of law and a fine, especially when the contemnor shows contrition and the judges involved have been vindicated.