Flores vs. Abesamis

A litigant may be held in contempt of court for willful disregard of final judgments and orders, abuse of court processes, and forum shopping by filing multiple baseless administrative and criminal complaints against judges. Furthermore, administrative or criminal remedies against judges are not available until after the exhaustion of judicial remedies (appeal or certiorari) and a final declaration by a competent court of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, coupled with evidence of malice, bad faith, or ignorance on the part of the judge.

The case arose from a longstanding civil dispute between Damaso S. Flores and Rolando Ligon involving an admitted debt of approximately 1.8 million pesos and the possession of the Paranaque Cockpit Stadium. After a compromise judgment was breached, a series of execution proceedings, appeals, and collateral attacks ensued, with Flores temporarily regaining possession through appellate court decisions. However, subsequent supervening events (Ligon becoming the owner of the cockpit) led the trial court to rule against Flores' continued possession. Frustrated by these developments, Flores initiated multiple administrative and criminal complaints against the presiding judges, culminating in the present contempt proceeding after he persisted in filing complaints already adjudicated as meritless.

• Damaso S. Flores was the defendant in Civil Case No. Q-45825 in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85, involving an admitted indebtedness of approximately 1.8 million pesos to plaintiff Rolando Ligon.
• On September 26, 1985, Judge Jose Castro rendered a judgment based on compromise, providing for payment in installments and, in case of default, acceleration of the obligation and surrender of the "Paranaque Cockpit Stadium" (held by Flores under lease) to Ligon.
• On April 10, 1986, the trial court declared Flores to have breached the compromise judgment and directed execution thereof; a writ of execution issued on May 22, 1986.
• Flores appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 10259) and filed a certiorari action (CA-G.R. SP No. 09061) to nullify the writ of execution.
• On September 19, 1986, the Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. SP No. 09061 in Flores' favor, vindicating his right to possess the cockpit. The Supreme Court dismissed Ligon's petition (G.R. No. 76039) on February 23, 1987.
• Flores filed motions dated April 5, 1988, June 9, 1988, and August 15, 1988, to restore possession of the cockpit. Judge Abesamis granted these motions in orders dated April 20, 1988, May 2, 1988, and August 31, 1988, respectively.
• Enforcement of these orders was delayed by temporary restraining orders issued by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 14588) and the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 84644), which were not lifted until October 23, 1989.
• Despite awareness of these circumstances, Flores filed criminal case OMB-0-89-01209 (May 22, 1989) and administrative cases A.M. No. RTJ-89-348 and A.M. No. 90-11-332-SB against Judge Abesamis, accusing him of partiality, bad faith, gross negligence, and ignorance of the law for allegedly delaying action on his motions.
• The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint on September 13, 1989 for lack of merit, finding that Judge Abesamis had acted promptly.
• After supervening events (Ligon becoming the owner of the cockpit), Judges Abesamis and Regino issued orders on February 16, 1990 and April 16, 1990, respectively, ruling that restoration of possession to Flores was barred.
• Flores challenged these orders via certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 22201), which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on October 31, 1990, and by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 97556.
• On September 14, 1993, the Supreme Court dismissed Flores' administrative cases against Judges Abesamis and Regino for lack of merit.
• On December 21, 1995, Flores filed another complaint (CPL No. 95-3618) against Judge Abesamis in the Office of the Ombudsman, accusing him of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for alleged bias and prejudice regarding the 1990 orders, despite knowing these orders had already been sustained by higher courts.
• The case was referred to the Supreme Court as A.M. No. SC-96-1 and dismissed for utter lack of merit on December 23, 1996, with Flores ordered to explain why he should not be disciplined for willful disregard of judgments, abuse of processes, and forum shopping.
• Flores submitted his explanation on January 14, 1997, claiming he filed the cases in the firm belief they were meritorious and with pure motives to obtain justice.

• The Office of the Court Administrator (representing the Court's charge) maintained that Flores willfully disregarded the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals by filing multiple complaints against Judge Abesamis despite the dismissal of his earlier complaints and the affirmation of the judge's orders by higher courts.
• It was argued that Flores abused the processes of the courts by using administrative and criminal proceedings as substitutes for judicial remedies, filing them contemporaneously with or prior to the exhaustion of available judicial remedies.
• The charge asserted that Flores engaged in forum shopping by attempting to re-litigate issues already definitively resolved by the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, demonstrating insolent disregard for the Court's adjudgments.

• Damaso S. Flores, in his "Compliance" dated January 14, 1997, argued that he did not willfully disregard the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.
• He contended that he did not abuse the courts' processes nor engage in forum shopping, asserting that he filed the cases in the firm belief that they were meritorious and not intended for delay or to harass anyone.
• Flores claimed he acted with pure motives solely to obtain justice and secure what was due to him, denying any improper intent behind the filing of his multiple complaints.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether Flores' explanation submitted on January 14, 1997 sufficiently justified his actions and negated the charge of willful disregard of court judgments and orders.
  • Whether the procedural prerequisites for holding a litigant in contempt were satisfied in this case.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Flores is guilty of contempt of court for willful disregard of final judgments and orders, abuse of court processes, and forum shopping.
  • Whether administrative or criminal remedies against judges may be resorted to before the exhaustion of judicial remedies and a final declaration of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order.

• Procedural:
  • The Court found Flores' explanation insufficient and unconvincing. The Court ruled that Flores' claim of good faith was belied by the fact that he filed complaints involving matters already passed upon and definitively resolved by higher courts, demonstrating knowledge of the lack of merit in his subsequent filings.
  • The Court determined that the procedural requirements for contempt were satisfied, as Flores was given the opportunity to explain through the show cause order of December 23, 1996, and the Court found his explanation inadequate to excuse his conduct.
• Substantive:
  • The Court held Flores guilty of contempt of court under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court for improper conduct tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.
  • The Court ruled that Flores willfully disregarded the judgments and orders of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals by filing administrative and criminal complaints against Judge Abesamis in 1989 and 1995, despite knowing that the specific orders he assailed had already been sustained by higher courts and that his earlier complaints had been dismissed for lack of merit.
  • The Court established that administrative or criminal remedies against judges are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must await the result thereof. Resort to disciplinary proceedings is premature until judicial remedies are exhausted and appellate tribunals have spoken with finality.
  • The Court found that Flores abused court processes by using administrative and criminal prosecution as substitutes for or supplements to judicial remedies, and engaged in blatant forum shopping by attempting to re-ventilate issues already definitively resolved.
  • Flores was sentenced to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

• Exhaustion of Judicial Remedies before Administrative/Criminal Action against Judges — Administrative or criminal remedies against judges are not complementary, suppletory, or substitutive of judicial remedies. A party must exhaust ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies (appeal, certiorari, etc.) and obtain a final declaration from a competent court of the manifestly unjust character of the judgment or order, plus evidence of malice, bad faith, or inexcusable negligence, before filing administrative or criminal charges against a judge. This ensures judges can decide cases without fear of intimidation or external pressure.
• Forum Shopping — The practice of filing multiple suits involving the same parties and issues, either simultaneously or successively, to obtain a favorable judgment, or re-litigating issues already definitively resolved by competent courts, constitutes forum shopping and is punishable as contempt of court.
• Abuse of Court Processes — Resorting to administrative or criminal proceedings against judges while judicial remedies are still pending, or filing multiple baseless complaints to harass judges or influence their decisions, constitutes abuse of court processes and contempt of court.
• Contempt of Court (Section 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court) — Improper conduct tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, including the willful disregard or disobedience of judgments, orders, or processes of the court, is punishable as indirect contempt.

• "administrative or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof"
• "judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors, they should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions"
• "It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, Civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed."
• "Flores resorted to administrative prosecution (or institution of criminal actions) as a substitute for or supplement to the specific modes of appeal or review provided by law from court judgments or orders... This is impermissible"
• "Flores is more than preponderantly shown by the evidence to have, more than once: (a) instituted criminal as well as administrative proceedings against Judge Abesamis (and Judge Regino) which he knew to be completely without basis in fact; (2) resorted to administrative and criminal prosecution contemporaneously with, and prior to exhaustion of, judicial remedies against the acts complained of; and (3) engaged in forum-shopping."

• In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382 (1987) — Cited for the doctrine that administrative or criminal remedies against judges must await the result of judicial review where such review is available.
• In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405 (1995) — Cited for the principle that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith, and that prosecution of judges requires a final declaration of manifest injustice plus evidence of malice or bad faith.

• Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court — Defines indirect contempt as including improper conduct tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice, and disobedience of judgments, orders, or processes of the court. Cited as the basis for finding Flores guilty of contempt.
• Article 32 of the Civil Code — Cited regarding the stringent circumstances under which judges may be held liable for damages for acts done in the performance of their duties.
• Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Cited as the provision Flores accused Judge Abesamis of violating (causing undue injury through manifest partiality), but which the Court found no basis to apply.

• Narvasa, C.J., and Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Francisco, Panganiban, Hermosisima, Jr. and Torres, JJ. — All concurred in the Resolution finding Flores guilty of contempt and imposing the fine, without writing separate opinions.

• Melo, J. — Took no part due to participation in previous cases in the Court of Appeals.
• Puno, J. — Took no part due to relationship.
• Kapunan, J. — On leave.