1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 439

Vidallon­Magtolis vs. Salud

*
G.R. No. 168056. September 1, 2005.

ABAKADA GURO PARTY LIST (Formerly AASJAS)

OFFICERS SAMSON S. ALCANTARA and ED VINCENT
S. ALBANO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA;
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE CESAR PURISIMA; and HONORABLE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., respondents.
*
G.R. No. 168207. September 1, 2005.

AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR., LUISA P. EJERCITO­

ESTRADA, JINGGOY E. ESTRADA, PANFILO M.
LACSON, ALFREDO S. LIM, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL,
AND SERGIO

_______________

* EN BANC.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

R. OSMEÑA III, petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, CESAR V.
PURISIMA, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, GUILLERMO L.
PARAYNO, JR., COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, respondents.

G.R. No. 168461. September 1, 2005.*

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

ASSOCIATION OF PILIPINAS SHELL DEALERS, INC.

represented by its President, ROSARIO ANTONIO;
PETRON DEALERS’ ASSOCIATION represented by its
President, RUTH E. BARBIBI; ASSOCIATION OF
CALTEX DEALERS’ OF THE PHILIPPINES represented
by its President, MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA; ROSARIO
ANTONIO doing business under the name and style of
“ANB NORTH SHELL SERVICE STATION”; LOURDES
MARTINEZ doing business under the name and style of
“SHELL GATE—N. DOMINGO”; BETH­ZAIDA TAN doing
business under the name and style of “ADVANCE SHELL
STATION”; REYNALDO P. MONTOYA doing business
under the name and style of “NEW LAMUAN SHELL
SERVICE STATION”; EFREN SOTTO doing business
under the name and style of “RED FIELD SHELL
SERVICE STATION”; DONICA CORPORATION
represented by its President, DESI TOMACRUZ; RUTH E.
MARBIBI doing business under the name and style of
“R&R PETRON STATION”; PETER M. UNGSON doing
business under the name and style of “CLASSIC STAR
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION”; MARIAN SHEILA A.
LEE doing business under the name and style of “NTE
GASOLINE & SERVICE STATION”; JULIAN CESAR P.
POSADAS doing business under the name and style of
“STARCARGA ENTERPRISES”; ADORACION MAÑEBO
doing business under the name and style of “CMA
MOTORISTS CENTER”; SUSAN M. ENTRATA doing
business under the name and style of “LEONA’S
GASOLINE STATION and SERVICE CENTER”;
CARMELITA BALDONADO doing business under the
name and style of “FIRST CHOICE SERVICE CENTER”;
MERCEDITAS A. GARCIA

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 3

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

doing business under the name and style of “LORPED

SERVICE CENTER”; RHEAMAR A. RAMOS doing
business under the name and style of “RJRAM PTT GAS
STATION”; MA. ISABEL VIOLAGO doing business under
the name and style of “VIOLAGO­PTT SERVICE
CENTER”; MOTORISTS’ HEART CORPORATION
represented by its Vice­President for Operations,
JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS’ HARVARD
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

CORPORATION represented by its Vice­President for

Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; MOTORISTS’
HERITAGE CORPORATION represented by its Vice­
President for Operations, JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA;
PHILIPPINE STANDARD OIL CORPORATION
represented by its Vice­President for Operations,
JOSELITO F. FLORDELIZA; ROMEO MANUEL doing
business under the name and style of “ROMMAN
GASOLINE STATION”; ANTHONY ALBERT CRUZ III
doing business under the name and style of “TRUE
SERVICE STATION,” petitioners, vs. CESAR V.
PURISIMA, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department
of Finance and GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his
capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 168463. September 1, 2005.*

FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, VINCENT

CRISOLOGO, EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA,
RODOLFO G. PLAZA, DARLENE ANTONINO­
CUSTODIO, OSCAR G. MALAPITAN, BENJAMIN C.
AGARAO, JR. JUAN EDGARDO M. ANGARA, JUSTIN
MARC SB. CHIPECO, FLORENCIO G. NOEL, MUJIV S.
HATAMAN, RENATO B. MAGTUBO, JOSEPH A.
SANTIAGO, TEOFISTO DL. GUINGONA III, RUY ELIAS
C. LOPEZ, RODOLFO Q. AGBAYANI and TEODORO A.
CASIÑO, petitioners, vs. CESAR V. PURISIMA, in his
capacity as Secretary of Finance, GUILLERMO L.
PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of
Internal Revenue, and EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his
capacity as Executive Secretary, respondents.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 168730. September 1, 2005. *

BATAAN GOVERNOR ENRIQUE T. GARCIA, JR.,

petitioner, vs. HON. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, in his
capacity as the Executive Secretary; HON. MARGARITO
TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of Finance; HON.
JOSE MARIO BUNAG, in his capacity as the OIC
Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue; and

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

HON. ALEXANDER AREVALO, in his capacity as the OIC

Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, respondents.

Courts; Contempt; Separation of Powers; If it were true that

former Finance Secretary Purisima felt that the media
misconstrued his actions, then he should have immediately
rectified it and not waited until the Supreme Court required him
to explain before he denied having made such statements which
impressed upon the public’s mind that the issuance of the TRO
was the product of the machinations on the Court by the executive
branch.—At the time the reports came out, Purisima did not
controvert the truth or falsity of the statements attributed to him.
It was only after the Court issued the show­cause order that
Purisima saw it fit to deny having uttered these statements. By
then, it was already impressed upon the public’s mind that the
issuance of the TRO was the product of machinations on the
Court by the executive branch. If it were true that Purisima felt
that the media misconstrued his actions, then he should have
immediately rectified it. He should not have waited until the
Court required him to explain before he denied having made such
statements. And even then, his denials were made as a result of
the Court’s show­cause order and not by any voluntary act on his
part that will show utter regret for having been “misquoted.”
Purisima should know that these press releases placed the Court
into dis­honor, disrespect, and public contempt, diminished public
confidence, promoted distrust in the Court, and assailed the
integrity of its Members. The Court already took a beating before
Purisima made any disclaimer. The damage has been done, so to
speak.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme Court.

Contempt.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 5

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

     Carlos G. Baniqued and Laura Victoria Yuson­Layug for

petitioners in G.R. No. 168461.
          Eugenio H. Villareal, Dionisio B. Marasigan, Ma.
Rosa­lie Taguian, Agustin C. Bacungan III and Roland
Allan C. Abarquez for petitioners in G.R. No. 168463.
Samson S. Alcantara, Ed Vincent S. Albano and Rene B.
Gorospe for petitioners in G.R. No. 168056.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

          Luis Ma. Gil L. Gana for petitioners in G.R. No.

168207.
     The Solicitor General for public respondents.

RESOLUTION

AUSTRIA­MARTINEZ, J.:

In view of the Court’s Resolution dated July 12, 2005,

which required Former Finance Secretary Cesar V.
Purisima to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt of court for conduct which puts the Court and its
Members into dis­honor, disrepute and discredit, and
degrades the administration of justice, Purisima filed his
Compliance thereto, stating that:

“It is not true that I claimed or even insinuated that this

Honorable Court was pressured or influenced by President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo or Malacañang Palace to issue a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) in the instant cases. What I stated was
simply that President Arroyo had on several occasions discussed
with the economic team the possibility of postponing the
implementation of Republic Act No. 9337. While I believe that
President Arroyo wanted to postpone the implementation of the
said law, I never claimed or insinuated that this Honorable Court
was influenced or pressured to issue the TRO against its
implementation.
...
I do not deny that I was extremely disappointed when this
Honorable Court issued the TRO, which was a serious setback to
our fiscal consolidation program. And my disappointment grew
when I felt that the Government specifically the Executive
branch, was not doing enough to have the TRO lifted. At the
height of my disap­

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

pointment, and after hearing of rumors that Executive officials

may have been instrumental in procuring the TRO, I did enquire
from the other cabinet officials whether Malacañang had a hand
in the issuance of the order. I felt that it was my right and duty as
Finance Secretary to make such an inquiry, given that before the
issuance of the TRO, the President had inquired about the
possibility of deferring the implementation of Republic Act No.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

9337. But surely, my inquiries whether Malacañang did so, did

not amount to, as it was not intended to have the effect of,
claiming outright or necessarily insinuating that Malacañang did 1
so, or to hold, in any manner, this Honorable Court in contempt.”

Purisima cites the July 11, 2005 edition of the Philippine

Star and the July 10, 2005 edition of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, which reported that Purisima did not directly
accuse the President of influencing the Court in issuing the
TRO, and that he would neither confirm nor deny the
reports that the President had a hand in its issuance.
The Court finds Purisima’s explanation unsatisfactory.
The Court reproduces excerpts from some of the reports
contained in the newspapers with regard to Purisima’s
statements, to wit:

(1) July 10, 2005, The Philippine Star, Opinion Section (It’s the
Economy, Stupid!)

The present political crisis will inevitably boil down to the economy as
the real issue that will ultimately bring down the Arroyo Administration.
What we are hearing from people close to the Palace is that the TRO
issued by the Supreme Court on the EVAT is the real reason why 10
Cabinet members, specially Cesar Purisima and Johnny Santos,
resigned. Cesar Purisima further pointed out that her decision­making
process has adversely affected the economy. The frustrated economic
team felt that GMA had actually influenced the Supreme Court to issue
the TRO to postpone the bad effects of the EVAT on prices purely for her
political survival. If indeed that is true, then it just confirms that our
present political system

_______________

1 Compliance, pp. 2­3.

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 7

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

has really gone from bad to worse. What I found disgusting is that the
plotters, especially Cesar Purisima, sounded like Judas Iscariot. They
could just have simply resigned without making a spectacle out of it.

(2) July 10, 2005, The Daily Tribune (SC Denies Palace Pressed
Issuance of E­VAT TRO)

Reports had claimed that the former economic team of Mrs. Arroyo
decided to resign over the weekend due in part to the administration’s
lobbying the SC to issue a restraining order on the e­VAT, apparently to

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

prevent the public from further seething against the government over the
continuous spiraling of the prices of basic goods and services.
...
Finance officials led by Purisima previously expressed dismay over the
suspension of the e­VAT as they claimed that the TRO would cost the
government at least P140 million a day in unrealized revenues.
Purisima hinted that Mrs. Arroyo had a hand in the SC’s TRO to save
her presidency.

(3) July 11, 2005, Manila Standard Today (Palace Debunks

Purisima Claim on EVAT)

Malacañang yesterday branded as “ridiculous” the insinuations that

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had a hand in the Supreme Court’s
July 1 order suspending the implementation of the Expanded Value­
Added Tax Law.
At the same time, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez slammed resigned
Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and exTrade Secretary Juan Santos
for claiming that the President had wanted the implementation of the
law delayed so she would not get too much political flak for the tax
measure.

(4) July 11, 2005, The Philippine Star, Business Section (The
Last Straw that Broke a Cabinet)

For ex­Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, the implementation of the

EVAT law was a major pillar to strengthen the country’s finances, to get
our fiscal house in order. As far as he and the rest of the economic
management team he heads are concerned, they are operating under the
fiscal equivalent of a red alert. They have scored some early victories, like
the in

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

crease in revenue collections in recent months, but they know that they
are still far from being in the clear.
That was why Purisima felt truly betrayed when he reportedly got a
phone call from an official telling him “yung hinihingi nyo sa Supreme
Court binigay na.” He didn’t have any pending requests from the Court
so he wondered, refusing to accept the reality of his worst fear: The
EVAT had been sacrificed by the Palace.

(5) July 12, 2005, The Philippine Daily Inquirer (No GMA
Influence on e­VAT freeze­SC)

Bunye made the reaffirmation after Purisima and former Trade

Secretary Juan Santos insinuated that the President might have

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

influenced the Supreme Court to grant the TRO.

At the time the reports came out, Purisima did not contro­
vert the truth or falsity of the statements attributed to
him. It was only after the Court issued the show­cause
order that Purisima saw it fit to deny having uttered these
statements. By then, it was already impressed upon the
public’s mind that the issuance of the TRO was the product
of machinations on the Court by the executive branch.
If it were true that Purisima felt that the media
misconstrued his actions, then he should have immediately
rectified it. He should not have waited until the Court
required him to explain before he denied having made such
statements. And even then, his denials were made as a
result of the Court’s show­cause order and not by any
voluntary act on his part that will show utter regret for
having been “misquoted.” Purisima should know that these
press releases placed the Court into dishonor, disrespect,
and public contempt, diminished public confidence,
promoted distrust in the Court, and assailed the integrity
of its Members. The Court already took a beating before
Purisima made any disclaimer. The damage has been done,
so to speak.
WHEREFORE, Cesar V. Purisima is found GUILTY of
indirect contempt of court and FINED in the amount of
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be paid within ten
(10) days from finality of herein Resolution.

VOL. 469, SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 9

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Ermita

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing,

Sandoval­Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio­Morales,
Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico­Nazario and Garcia, JJ.,
concur.
Ynares­Santiago, J., On Leave.

Cesar V. Purisima meted with P20,000.00 fine for

indirect contempt.

Notes.—A publication which tends to impede, obstruct,

embarrass or influence the courts in administering justice
in a pending suit or proceeding, constitutes criminal
contempt which is summarily punishable by courts. A
publication which tends to degrade the courts and to
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
1/19/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 469

destroy public confidence in them or that which tends to

bring them in any way into disrepute, constitutes likewise
criminal contempt, and is equally punishable by courts.
(Social Weather Stations, Inc. vs. Asuncion, 228 SCRA xi
[1993])

Clearly, the public interest involved in freedom of speech

and the individual interest of judges (and for that matter,
all other public officials) in the maintenance of private
honor and reputation need to be accommodated one to the
other. And the point of adjustment or accommodation
between these two legitimate interests is precisely found in
the norm which requires those who, invoking freedom of
speech, publish statements which are clearly defamatory to
identifiable judges or other public officials to exercise bona
fide care in ascertaining the truth of the statements they
publish. The norm does not require that a journalist
guarantee the truth of what he says or publishes. But the
norm does prohibit the reckless disregard of private
reputation by publishing or circulating defamatory
statements without any bona fide effort to ascertain the
truth thereof. (In Re: Emil P. Jurado, 243 SCRA 299
[1995])

——o0o——

10

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159b303b5453c64081e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9