Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari alleging that SB 4 th Division acted with

GADALEJ in not finding their explanation satisfactory ad ordering them to pay the
GARAYBLAS v. ONG
fine and the court’s travel expenses.
G.R. No. 174507-30, August 3, 2011 - Manzo

Petitioner: Atty. Emelita Garayblas and Atty. Renato De La Cruz ISSUE: W/N Attys. Garayblas and De La Cruz should be held liable for her non-
Respondents: Hon. Gregory Ong, Hon. Jose Hernandez, and Hon. Rodolfo appearance – Yes.
Ponferrada
RULING: Garayblas should be held liable. However, the fine and the order to pay
DOCTRINE: Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
the Division’s travel expenses should not be imposed because her valid excuse was
Criminal Procedure, the court may sanction or penalize counsel for the
already acknowledged by the SB Division. De La Cruz should not be held liable.
accused if the following concur: (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-
trial conference and (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse.
Section 3 of Rule 118 provides:
FACTS: Garayblas, et al were held liable for their non-appearance in scheduled pre-
Sec. 3. Non-appearance at Pre-Trial Conference. - If the counsel for the
trial conferences.
accused or the prosecutor does not appear at the pre-trial conference and
does not offer an acceptable excuse for his lack of cooperation, the court
Atty. Garayblas, et al were representing Gen. Ramiscal in falsification of public
may impose proper sanctions or penalties.
documents cases before the Sandiganbayan (SB)
Pursuant to the foregoing provision, the court may sanction or penalize counsel for
Gen. Ramiscal was arragned and pre-trial was set on April 6, 2006. Notice of Hearing
the accused if the following concur: (1) counsel does not appear at the pre-trial
was sent to all parties informing them of that the pre-trial was moved to April 27
conference AND (2) counsel does not offer an acceptable excuse.
instead. Garayblas opposed the resetting and filed a Motion to Reset. The SB denied
their motion.
The SB 4th Division already said it believed Atty. Garayblas' claim that a day
before the scheculed pre-trial conference in Davao City, she started suffering from
Garayblas failed to appear on the April 27 pretrial conference due to severe
hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and hypertension, and she felt the symptoms
headache, body weakness and sluggishness. Public respondents ordered Garayblas
thereof until the day of the pre-trial itself. This incapacitated her from traveling to
and her associates to explain why they should not be held in contempt.
Davao City to appear at the proceedings. Note that symptoms of hypertension
include confusion, ear noise or buzzing, fatigue, headache, irregular heartbeat, and
Garayblas filed a manifestation stating that Dr. Graciella Garayblas-Gonzaga of UST
vision changes. As for hyperglycemia, a person suffering therefrom experiences
Hospital advised her to enter the hospital but she opted to stay home and
headaches, increased thirst, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, frequent
administered her insulin injection every 6 hours instead. Atty. De La Cruz provided a
urinating, and fatigue, among others. Verily, the Court can understand that a person
certificate of appearance from another SB Division to prove that he had to appear
suffering from confusion, difficulty in concentrating, blurred vision, fatigue, and
before a different case that same day.
others, would be hard put to attend a hearing, much less have the clarity of mind to
think or worry about finding another lawyer to substitute for her. Indeed, it would
Hons. Ong, et al were not satisfied with the explanations of Garayblas and De La
not be reasonable to expect her to have been able to make the necessary
Cruz so the latter were held liable for their absence in the scheduled pre-trial
arrangements for another lawyer to attend in her stead.
conference. Garayblas and De La Cruz were ordered to pay a fine of 10k each and to
answer for the traveling and other expenses of the Court.
This being so, it is not quite prudent to send in a new lawyer, who has not had ample
time to fully familiarize himself or herself with the facts and issues involved in the
Garayblas filed a Motion for Reconsideratin reasoning, among others, that she had
case, to attend a pre-trial conference. Sending to the pre-trial conference a new
no intention of disregarding the scheduled pre-trial but her health and physical
lawyer who is not very knowledgeable about the case would most probably lead to
condition prevented her from attending the same, and the records would show that
such careless preparation which the Court abhors.
except for her non-appearance that day, she had never been absent in all the
proceedings for the subject case before this particular SB Division. De La Cruz
Moreover, respondents do not refute Atty. Garayblas' claim that before the pre-
reiterated that he attended another hearing that day and it was agreed that it was
trial conference, she had never been absent for a hearing before the SB 4th
Garayblas who would appear for the pre-trial before this Division.
Division. This circumstance should be taken in her favor, as it shows that she is not
in the habit of feigning illness to deliberately delay the proceedings.
Although the court accepted believed Garayblas’ explanation, it still denied the MR,
insisting that they should have made arrangements for De La Cruz to prioritize this
However, Atty. Garayblas should have at least sent word to the SB 4th
hearing.
Division and to her co-counsel, Atty. De la Cruz, when she began feeling
the symptoms of hypertension and hyperglycemia, that she would be

1
unable to attend said pre-trial conference. This would have been the
courteous thing to do.

With regard to Atty. De la Cruz, his non-appearance at the pre-trial conference was
also excusable. There were hearings for their client's case in two separate divisions
of the Sandiganbayan on the very same date in two distant locations. To ensure
representation for their client at the hearings in both divisions of the
Sandiganbayan, petitioners agreed that Atty. De la Cruz would attend the one before
the Second division, while Atty. Garayblas would attend the one before the SB 4th
Division in Davao City. It appears that Atty. De la Cruz was not fully apprised of the
fact that his co-counsel would not be able to attend the pre-trial conference. It is
understandable why Atty. De la Cruz could not have abandoned the hearing before
the Second Division so he could attend the pre-trial in Davao City. It was already
too late in the day for Atty. De la Cruz to change plans and to notify the
Second Division that he would be absent so he could attend the pre-trial in
Davao City instead of the hearing at the Second Division.

The Court finds respondents' directive for petitioners to pay part of the
travel expenses of court personnel in holding the hearing in Davao City to
be unwarranted. There is nothing on record to show that the proceedings were
being held in Davao City mainly because of the cases being handled by petitioners.

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 in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the
dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.

Petitioner Atty. De la Cruz has presented a valid and acceptable excuse, for which
he should not be found liable under Section 3, Rule 118 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. On the other hand, petitioner Atty. Garayblas showed some
lapse in judgment, not to mention discourteous behavior, in not informing the SB 4th
Division at the earliest possible time of her illness and inability to attend said pre-
trial conference.

DISPOSITION: Petition partially granted. Fine imposed was deleted. Garayblas was
instead given a stern warning.