Court junks Winston's motion to cite six COA staff for indirect contempt

Regional Trial Court judge Geraldine Faith Econg yesterday rejected the motion of Government Service Insurance System general manager Winston Garcia to cite for indirect contempt six employees of the Commission on Audit.

Garcia had filed a motion that requested the court to penalize COA employees Raquel Habitan, Leonor Baodo, Joel Estolatan, Rhoda Pileña, Alexander Juliano and Rosalinda Salvador for implying that the courts in Cebu may be influenced by the Garcias' political clout.

Habitan is an assistant commissioner at the Commission on Audit in Manila, while the rest of the defendants are members of the special audit team that Habitan created to investigate the transactions of the GSIS.

Garcia filed a civil suit before the court in Cebu against the Manila-based COA officials and demanded P2.3 million in damages and compensation for issuing of reports containing findings and observations that Garcia and other GSIS officials have violated the provisions of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

But the defendants' lawyer, Alberto Habitan, who is the husband of the COA official, described the move of Garcia of filing a case against the defendants in Cebu as a way to harass them.

They are petitioning the Supreme Court asking for the transfer of the venue of the trial to Manila because according to them, Garcia is already staying in Manila and not in Cebu.

Atty. Habitan yesterday presented to the court some documents, such as certificate of land titles, a certification from the GSIS human resource officer and a telephone directory, showing that Garcia is already staying in San Lorenzo village in Makati City.

To convince the Supreme Court to grant their petition to transfer the venue of the trial, the defendants said Garcia might wield influence on local judges, considering that he is the brother of Gov. Gwen Garcia and son of the former governor.

Econg, however, ruled that Garcia's lawyers committed a mistake when they only filed a motion instead of a petition if they wished that the court would cite particular persons for indirect contempt and they should also pay the corresponding filing fees.

A person could be cited for indirect contempt of court if he or she commit acts such as "improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice."

Econg, however, told Garcia's lawyers that if they want the COA officials and employees to be cited for indirect contempt of court, they should comply with what is provided for under section 4 of the Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

The said provision states that the proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated "motu proprio" by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

But in all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition - not by motions - with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned.

If the contempt charge arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision

Econg has directed Garcia's lawyers to present their proofs on why the case was filed in Cebu during the next hearing of the case on April 26. - Rene U. Borromeo