Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts:
This case was already decided. The Court dismissed the Petition pertained to
grant of bail to Poblete who has been charged with Estafa. The reason is that
the case had long been became moot and academic because of the
petitioners acquittal on the said criminal case in 1999.
Considering that the subject matter of the petition related to the grant of
bail to Poblete, this petition could have been immediately dismissed as far
back as 1999, had the Court been informed of the acquittal of the petitioner.
Unfortunately, neither the petitioner nor private respondent bothered to
inform the Court of the fact of acquittal. Hence, the Court resolved in its D E
C I S I O N to direct the parties respective counsels, Atty. Roberto T. Neri for
the petitioner, and Atty. Arturo E. Balbastro for the private respondent, to
explain why they should not be held liable for indirect contempt for such
failure to inform the Court.
Atty. Balbastro argues that he could not be held liable for indirect contempt
owing to his good faith and lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade
the administration of justice.3 On the other hand, Atty. Neri similarly invokes
his lack of intention to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of
justice, and adds that "due to extreme pressure of his work, occasioned by
the numerous cases he has been handling . . . he totally forgot, albeit
unfortunate (sic), about the petition that he had filed in this case.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Balbastro and Atty. Neri are liable for indirect
contempt?
Ruling:
Yes to Atty. Neri and no to Atty. Balbastro.
We are inclined to hold Atty. Neri, counsel for petitioner, to a higher standard
of responsibility than Atty. Balbastro, counsel for the private respondent.
Indubitably, Atty. Balbastro could have immensely aided the Court had he
promptly informed us of the acquittal of the case, yet his was not the
primary responsibility to undertake such action. The burden would lie on the
party who instituted the action, the petitioner in this case. Generally, it is the
petitioner who bears greater interest in the resolution of a petition since it is
such party who seeks remedial relief from a standing lower court issuance.