A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238 - ENGR. EDGARDO R. TORCENDE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, KORONADAL CITY, SOUTH COTABATO.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated. [21] Unless grave abuse of discretion is shown, such discretion will not be interfered with either by mandamus or appeal. [22] With regard to the matter of contempt, it must be remembered that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings as well as to uphold the administration of justice. [23] The courts must exercise the power of contempt for purposes that are impersonal because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges but for the functions they exercise. [24] Thus, judges have time and again been enjoined to exercise their contempt power judiciously, sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication. [25] In the case at bar, the fine imposed on counsel for complainant as well as the order for him to reimburse the expenses of private complainant are unjust because both he and his counsel were not given an opportunity to explain their side. In short, respondent summarily imposed the sanctions on complainant and counsel. Such conduct of respondent is highly improper and only too deserving of reproof for the following reasons: First, the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. [26] Respondent judge owes it to the public and to the legal profession to know the law he is supposed to apply in a given controversy. [27] Indeed A judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and [be] aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law. [28] The Court has repeatedly impressed on judges that they should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence as well as to regard the study of law as a never ending and ceaseless process. [29] In this case, respondent judge displayed a deplorable deficiency in his grasp of the basic principles governing contempt. Contempt is defined as [a] disobedience to the court by setting up an opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. [30] Indirect contempt is one committed out of or not in the presence of the court that tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice. [31] On the other hand, direct contempt consists of or is characterized by misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the same within the meaning of Section 1, Rule 71. [32] There is no question that disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of a c