CASE DIGEST: Cagas vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 209185, February 25, 2014
MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS, Petitioner,v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., AND THE PROVINCIAL ELECTION OFFICER OF DAVAO DEL SUR, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MA. FEBES BARLAAN,Respondents.
CARPIO,J.:
FACTS:
The COMELEC issued a Resolution directing petitioner Marc Douglas to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court for the letter he sent to court administrator Jose Midas Marquez. The letter referred to reads:
Cagas, stating that the letter was a personal communication to his friend was not intended to be an official communication to Atty. Marquez, explained that he did not mean nor intend the letter to be an affront or a sign of disrespect to the Honorable Court. Far from being that, the letter, in its entirety, actually shows Cagasbelief in the fairness of the court and its members. Cagas may have expressed himself poorly, but in the second paragraph of the letter, he communicates his continuing faith in the Courts capacity to act on the truth, hence his request for Atty. Marquez to show the DVDs to the justices para malaman nila ang totoo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cagas may be held guilty of indirect contempt
HELD: YES
POLITICAL LAW: Privacy of Communication cannot be raised as a defense by petitioner
Cagas cannot raise the defense of privacy of communication, especially after his admission that he requested Court Administrator Marquez to show the DVDs to the members of this Court. Cagas had to admit this since in his letter to Court Administrator Marquez he actually asked the latter thus: x x xipapanood mopleasesa mgaA. Justicespara malaman nila ang totoo. In any event, messages addressed to the members of the Court, regardless of media or even of intermediary, in connection with the performance of their judicial functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court.
The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous acts against the Court. Cagas clearly wanted to exploit his seeming friendly ties with Court Administrator Marquez and havepardsutilize his official connections. Instead of filing a pleading, Cagas sent a package containing the letter and DVDs to Court Administrator Marquezs office address, with the intent of having the contents of the DVDs viewed by the members of this Court. Cagas impressed upon Court Administrator Marquez their friendship, which is underscored by the use ofpardsandpare. Cagas also attempted to sway the members of this Court through the intercession of his friend who, to his imagined convenience, is an official of the Judiciary.
The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is an abuse of the right to free speech7and degrades the administration of justice. Hence, the defamatory statements in the letter impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and not just of theponentealone.
MARC DOUGLAS IV C. CAGAS, Petitioner,v.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES, JR., AND THE PROVINCIAL ELECTION OFFICER OF DAVAO DEL SUR, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. MA. FEBES BARLAAN,Respondents.
CARPIO,J.:
FACTS:
The COMELEC issued a Resolution directing petitioner Marc Douglas to explain why he should not be cited in contempt of court for the letter he sent to court administrator Jose Midas Marquez. The letter referred to reads:
Atty. Jose Midas Marquez
SC Building, P. Faura St., Manila
Kamusta ka Pards, the recent SC decision in Cagas vs COMELEC did not surprise me. What struck me was the level of deceitfulness of whoever wrote the decision. It can poison the minds of law students.
Pare may padala ako na dvds parang awa mo na sa taga Davao del Surat sa sambayanan, ipapanood mo please sa mga A. Justices para malaman nila ang totoo.
God never sleeps.
God rewards the faithful.
Salamat Pards.
(signed)
Marc Cagas
Cagas, stating that the letter was a personal communication to his friend was not intended to be an official communication to Atty. Marquez, explained that he did not mean nor intend the letter to be an affront or a sign of disrespect to the Honorable Court. Far from being that, the letter, in its entirety, actually shows Cagasbelief in the fairness of the court and its members. Cagas may have expressed himself poorly, but in the second paragraph of the letter, he communicates his continuing faith in the Courts capacity to act on the truth, hence his request for Atty. Marquez to show the DVDs to the justices para malaman nila ang totoo.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cagas may be held guilty of indirect contempt
HELD: YES
POLITICAL LAW: Privacy of Communication cannot be raised as a defense by petitioner
Cagas cannot raise the defense of privacy of communication, especially after his admission that he requested Court Administrator Marquez to show the DVDs to the members of this Court. Cagas had to admit this since in his letter to Court Administrator Marquez he actually asked the latter thus: x x xipapanood mopleasesa mgaA. Justicespara malaman nila ang totoo. In any event, messages addressed to the members of the Court, regardless of media or even of intermediary, in connection with the performance of their judicial functions become part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire Court.
The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield for contemptuous acts against the Court. Cagas clearly wanted to exploit his seeming friendly ties with Court Administrator Marquez and havepardsutilize his official connections. Instead of filing a pleading, Cagas sent a package containing the letter and DVDs to Court Administrator Marquezs office address, with the intent of having the contents of the DVDs viewed by the members of this Court. Cagas impressed upon Court Administrator Marquez their friendship, which is underscored by the use ofpardsandpare. Cagas also attempted to sway the members of this Court through the intercession of his friend who, to his imagined convenience, is an official of the Judiciary.
The making of contemptuous statements directed against the Court is an abuse of the right to free speech7and degrades the administration of justice. Hence, the defamatory statements in the letter impaired public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and not just of theponentealone.
