PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v HON MACEDA & JAVELLANA

FACTS:
During Atty. Avelino Javellana’s hearing for petition for bail on September 14, 1989, Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor John Turalba. He manifested that he was appearing only to reiterate the Señor State
Prosecutor’s motion for deferment of the scheduled hearings on Atty. Javellana’s motion for bail. Judge
Maceda denied the said motion. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Turalba moved for reconsideration,
claiming that his position is subservient to that of the Senior State Prosecutor who is the duly designated
principal prosecutor and as a matter of conviction, he cannot proceed with the trial as well as with the
subsequent trials. Respondent Judge denied the motion for reconsideration, and, again, directed the
prosecution to present its evidence.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Turalba manifested that he was not participating in the proceedings and
begged to be allowed to leave the courtroom, which the respondent Judge refused. Nevertheless,
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Turalba walked out and, while walking towards the door, respondent
Judge ordered the Sheriff to arrest him. Judge Maceda issued an order finding Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Turalba in contempt of court; declaring the prosecution to have waived its right to present
evidence in opposition to private respondent’s petition for bail; and considering the said petition for bail
submitted for resolution. The respondent Judge imposed upon the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor the
penalty of ten (10) days imprisonment

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Maceda committed grave abuse of discretion when he insisted in continuously
hearing Atty. Javellana’s petition for bail and in ordering the arrest of APP Turalba of contempt of court.

RULING:

Yes. Contempt of court presupposes a contumacious attitude, a flouting or arrogant belligerence, a

defiance of the court. While courts are inherently empowered to punish for contempt to the end that
they may enforce their authority, preserve their integrity, maintain their dignity, and insure the
effectiveness of the administration of justice, nevertheless, such power should be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle, for the power to punish for contempt, being drastic and
extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.

A perusal of the transcript of the hearing held on 14 September 1989 shows that Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor John Turalba had not made any statement that could be considered as “contumacious” or an
affront to the dignity of the court. And, while the act of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Turalba of
“walking out” does not meet our approval — as he should have stayed after the respondent Judge had
denied his motion for permission to leave the courtroom — yet, the respondent Judge, in ordering the
incarceration of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Turalba, acted beyond the permissible limits of his
power to punish for contempt.
A restraining order was issued on August 31, 1989 ordering Judge Maceda to cease and desist from
continuing the hearing of Atty. Javellana’s petition for bail until the motion for discharge of Oscar
Tianzon as state witness is resolved. When respondent Judge, therefore, denied the prosecution’s
motion for deferment of the scheduled hearings on private respondent’s petition for bail and in
proceeding to hear the said motion, by ordering the prosecution to present its evidence — which
precipitated the walk-out of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor and his consequent arrest and
commitment to the Provincial Jail — he (respondent judge) was acting in violation of the restraining
order issued by this Court. Had the respondent Judge granted the prosecution’s motion for deferment,
this incident could have been avoided.