Garayblas vs. Ong

A counsel's non-appearance at a pre-trial conference is excused, precluding sanctions under Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when caused by a sudden severe medical condition that impairs cognitive function and mobility, or by a conflicting hearing in another division of the same court, provided there is no pattern of dilatory behavior.

Petitioners Atty. Emelita H. Garayblas and Atty. Renato G. De la Cruz served as principal and collaborating counsel, respectively, for Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal in criminal cases pending before the Second and Fourth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan. The Fourth Division scheduled a pre-trial conference for April 27, 2006, in Davao City, denying Garayblas's motion to reset the hearing. On April 26, 2006, Garayblas experienced a severe onset of hyperglycemia and hypertension, while De la Cruz attended a hearing for the same client before the Second Division in Manila. Both petitioners failed to appear at the Davao City pre-trial, prompting the Sandiganbayan to order them to show cause and subsequently imposing sanctions.

• Counsel Representation: Petitioners represented Gen. Jose S. Ramiscal in Criminal Case Nos. 25122-45 before the Sandiganbayan 4th Division, and Criminal Case Nos. 25741 and 25742 before the 2nd Division.
• Pre-trial Setting: The 4th Division scheduled a pre-trial in Davao City for April 27, 2006, denying Garayblas's motion to reset.
• Medical Emergency: On the afternoon of April 26, 2006, Atty. Garayblas suffered severe headaches, weakness, a blood sugar count of 420, and a blood pressure of 170/140. Her physician advised bed rest and insulin injections, preventing her from traveling to Davao City.
• Conflicting Schedule: To ensure representation for their client, petitioners agreed that De la Cruz would attend the hearing before the 2nd Division while Garayblas would attend the Davao pre-trial. De la Cruz was not apprised in time of Garayblas's inability to attend the Davao pre-trial.
• Sandiganbayan Order: Finding the explanations unsatisfactory, the 4th Division noted that Garayblas should have arranged for a substitute despite her illness, and De la Cruz should have prioritized the out-of-town hearing. The court fined both counsel ₱10,000 each and ordered them to partially cover the court's travel expenses to Davao.

• Acceptable Excuse for Non-Appearance: Petitioners argued that Garayblas's sudden severe illness and De la Cruz's conflicting hearing schedule constituted valid and acceptable excuses for their non-appearance at the pre-trial conference.
• Imprudence of Sending Substitute Counsel: Petitioners maintained that sending a substitute lawyer unfamiliar with the case would result in careless preparation, contrary to the objectives of a pre-trial conference. Furthermore, their law office was short-staffed due to a resignation and another lawyer's myocardial infarction.
• Unwarranted Travel Expenses: Petitioners contended that the cancellation of the pre-trial was not solely caused by their absence, as other accused had also failed to submit their pre-trial briefs, making the order to pay the court's travel expenses unwarranted.

• Duty to Arrange Substitute: Respondents argued that despite her illness, Garayblas had modern means of communication at her disposal and should have arranged for co-counsel or another colleague to attend the pre-trial.
• Priority of Out-of-Town Hearings: Respondents contended that De la Cruz should have given precedence to the out-of-town hearing in Davao City over the Manila hearing, considering the additional expenses incurred by the court.

• Acceptable Excuse: Whether petitioners' reasons for non-appearance at the pre-trial conference constituted an "acceptable excuse" under Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
• Propriety of Sanctions: Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing a fine and ordering petitioners to pay partial travel expenses despite the circumstances.

• Acceptable Excuse: Petitioners' non-appearance was excused. A sudden severe medical condition, such as hyperglycemia and hypertension causing confusion, fatigue, and blurred vision, reasonably incapacitates a lawyer from traveling and negates the expectation to arrange substitute counsel. A conflicting hearing in another division of the same court, agreed upon to ensure client representation, also constitutes an acceptable excuse, especially when it was too late in the day to alter plans.
• Propriety of Sanctions: The imposition of the fine and the order to pay travel expenses were unwarranted and constituted grave abuse of discretion. The contempt power must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, not vindictively. Furthermore, ordering petitioners to shoulder travel expenses was unjustified because the court's Davao sessions were not entirely wasted on petitioners' cases alone, and other accused also contributed to the pre-trial's cancellation by failing to submit their briefs. Atty. Garayblas, however, was sternly warned for her discourtesy in failing to promptly notify the court of her illness.

• Two Requisites for Pre-Trial Sanctions — Under Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, sanctions for non-appearance at a pre-trial conference require the concurrence of two elements: (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-trial conference, AND (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse for the lack of cooperation. The absence of one negates the imposition of penalties.
• Contempt Power Must Be Exercised with Restraint — The power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts to preserve order and uphold the administration of justice, but it must be exercised judiciously, sparingly, and with utmost restraint. It is intended as a safeguard for judicial functions, not for retaliation or vindication.

• "Pre-trial is meant to simplify, if not fully dispose of, the case at its early stage. x x x . x x x during pre-trial, attorneys must make a full disclosure of their positions as to what the real issues of the trial would be. They should not be allowed to embarrass or inconvenience the court or injure the opposing litigant by their careless preparation for a case; or by their failure to raise relevant issues at the outset of a trial x x x"
• "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. 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. Thus, judges have, time and again, been enjoined to exercise their contempt power judiciously, sparingly, with utmost restraint and with the end view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication."

• Bayas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143689-91, November 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 415 — Followed. Cited to emphasize that pre-trial requires attorneys to make a full disclosure of their positions and avoid careless preparation, making it imprudent to send an uninformed substitute lawyer.
• Inonog v. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, July 28, 2009, 594 SCRA 168 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that contempt power must be exercised judiciously, sparingly, and with utmost restraint, not for retaliation or vindication.

• Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that if counsel for the accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and does not offer an acceptable excuse for their lack of cooperation, the court may impose proper sanctions or penalties. Applied to require both non-appearance and lack of an acceptable excuse before sanctions can be validly imposed.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Arturo D. Brion, Roberto A. Abad, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno