Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    Comilang vs. Belen

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    Judge Belen issued orders requiring a state prosecutor to explain why he did not inform the court of a scheduled investigation and pay a fine, in defiance of a temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining Judge Belen from enforcing his previous order and decision in the case. The prosecutor filed a complaint against Judge Belen for partiality, malice, abuse of authority, and ignorance of the law. The court found Judge Belen guilty as charged, noting that a preliminary injunction is meant to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be fully heard, which Judge Belen undermined through his actions. While his dismissal from an administrative case would not bar review of criminal charges, his conduct was contemptuous

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Comilang vs. Belen

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    199 views2 pages
    Judge Belen issued orders requiring a state prosecutor to explain why he did not inform the court of a scheduled investigation and pay a fine, in defiance of a temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining Judge Belen from enforcing his previous order and decision in the case. The prosecutor filed a complaint against Judge Belen for partiality, malice, abuse of authority, and ignorance of the law. The court found Judge Belen guilty as charged, noting that a preliminary injunction is meant to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be fully heard, which Judge Belen undermined through his actions. While his dismissal from an administrative case would not bar review of criminal charges, his conduct was contemptuous

    Original Description:

    DIGEST

    Original Title

    19. Comilang vs. Belen

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Belen issued orders requiring a state prosecutor to explain why he did not inform the court of a scheduled investigation and pay a fine, in defiance of a temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining Judge Belen from enforcing his previous order and decision in the case. The prosecutor filed a complaint against Judge Belen for partiality, malice, abuse of authority, and ignorance of the law. The court found Judge Belen guilty as charged, noting that a preliminary injunction is meant to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be fully heard, which Judge Belen undermined through his actions. While his dismissal from an administrative case would not bar review of criminal charges, his conduct was contemptuous

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    199 views2 pages

    Comilang vs. Belen

    Uploaded by

    El Sitas
    Judge Belen issued orders requiring a state prosecutor to explain why he did not inform the court of a scheduled investigation and pay a fine, in defiance of a temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining Judge Belen from enforcing his previous order and decision in the case. The prosecutor filed a complaint against Judge Belen for partiality, malice, abuse of authority, and ignorance of the law. The court found Judge Belen guilty as charged, noting that a preliminary injunction is meant to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be fully heard, which Judge Belen undermined through his actions. While his dismissal from an administrative case would not bar review of criminal charges, his conduct was contemptuous

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    19. STATE PROSECUTORS II JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG, et al.

    vs
    MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN,
    June 26, 2012

    JUDGE

    A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216


    FACTS:

    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.

    The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining Judge


    Belen from executing and enforcing his assailed Order and Decision for
    a period of 60 days, which was subsequently extended with the
    issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.Notwithstanding the TRO,
    Judge Belen issued an Order. He also manifested that he was waiving
    his appearance on the scheduled hearing for the indirect contempt
    charge against him.

    Aggrieved, State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before


    the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Belen with
    manifest partiality and malice, evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of
    authority, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the show cause
    orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance to the
    injunctive writ issued by the CA.

    ISSUE:
    -

    Do Judge Belen's actuations showed manifest partiality and bias,


    evident bad faith, grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the
    law warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge?

    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 preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy, an adjunct to the main


    case subject to the latters outcome. Its sole objective is to preserve
    the status quo until the court hears fully the merits of the case. Its
    primary purpose is not to correct a wrong already consummated, or to
    redress an injury already sustained, or to punish wrongful acts already
    committed, but to preserve and protect the rights of the litigants
    during the pendency of the case. [15] The status quo should be that
    existing ante litem motam or at the time of the filing of the case.
    It must be stressed that Judge Belens dismissal from service as
    adjudged in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 cannot serve to bar a review of his
    conviction for indirect contempt.

    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.

    You might also like