REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
Petitioner,
-versus-

CA-G.R. No. __________

For: Contempt

MANUEL A. ROXAS, II, in his

capacity as the Secretary
of
Interior
and
Local
Government and Ex-Officio
Chairman of the National
Police
Commission,
RENATO
BRION,
in
his
capacity as the Director of
Department of Interior and
Local Government for the
National Capital Region,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
POLICE CHIEF DIRECTOR
CARMELO
VALMORIA,
POLICE
CHIEF
SUPERINTENDENT
HENRY
RANOLA, POLICE SENIOR
SUPERINTENDENT
ELMER
M. JAMIAS, and ROMULO
KID PEA,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CONTEMPT

Petitioner, JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., most
respectfully comes before this Honorable Court, and humbly
avers:
1.
Petitioner is the incumbent Mayor of the City of
Makati. He may be served with processes, orders, and
resolutions of the Honorable Court through the undersigned
counsel at the address indicated below.
2.
Respondent Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) and Respondent Manuel A. Roxas, II
1

(Respondent Roxas), as the Secretary of Interior and Local

Government and Ex-Officio Chairman of the National Police
Commission, are the persons directed to implement the
suspension orders issued by the Office of the Ombudsman
and have control and supervision over the Philippine
National Police. Respondents DILG and Roxas hold office at
the DILG-NAPOLCOM Center, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City 1100, where they may be served with
pleadings, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable
Court.
3.
Respondent Renato Brion (Respondent Brion) is
the Director of the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) for the National Capital Region
(NCR), and holds office at the DILG-NAPOLCOM Center,
EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City 1100, where he
may be served with pleadings, orders and other legal
processes of the Honorable Court.
4.
Respondent Police Chief Director Carmelo Valmoria
(Respondent Valmoria) is the Regional Director of the NCR
Police Office (NCRPO) and holds office at the NCRPO
Headquarters in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City,
where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other
legal processes of the Honorable Court.
5.
Respondent Police Chief Superintendent Henry
Ranola (Respondent Ranola) is the Director of the Southern
Police District and holds office in the NCRPO Headquarters at
Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City, where he may be
served with pleadings, orders and other legal processes of
the Honorable Court.
6.
Respondent Police Senior Superintendent Elmer M.
Jamias (Respondent Jamias) is, at all times material hereto,
the commanding officer of the thousands of members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Special Action Force (SAF)
and the PNP Civil Disturbance Unit (collectively referred to as
the PNP Force), and holds office at the NCRPO
Headquarters in Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City,
where he may be served with pleadings, orders and other
legal processes of the Honorable Court.
7.
Respondent Romulo Kid Pea is the Vice-Mayor
of the City of Makati, who still claims to be the Acting Mayor
of the City of Makati despite of the Temporary Restraining

Order1 issued by the Honorable Court, and holds office at the

Office of the Vice-Mayor, Makati City Hall Building 1, J.P. Rizal
Street, Brgy. Poblacion. Makati City 1200.
8.
On 10 March 2015, the Ombudsman issued a Joint
Order, directing the preventive suspension of Petitioner for
six (6) months, due to the alleged anomalies that occurred
during the five (5) phases of the procurement and
construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building. The
said Joint Order further directed Respondent Roxas to
implement the preventive suspension of the Petitioner.
9.
On 11 March 2015, Petitioner filed with the
Honorable Court a Petition for Certiorari (With Extremely
Urgent Application for Issuance of Temporary Restraining
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) of even date
assailing the Joint Order for its patent illegality. Petitioner
thus prayed that the Office of the Ombudsman and the DILG
as well as their agents and/or representatives be enjoined
from performing any act which would render the issues
raised therein as moot or as would prejudice the rights of the
Petitioner.2
10. On 16 March 2015, the Honorable Court granted
Petitioners application for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO)3, to wit:
In view of the seriousness of the issues raised in the
Petition for Certiorari and the possible repercussions on the
electorate who will unquestionably be affected by the
suspension of their elective official, the Court resolves to
grant petitioners prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order
for a period of sixty (60) days from notice hereof,
conditioned upon the posting by petitioner of a bond in the
amount
of
FIVE
HUNDRED
THOUSAND
PESOS
(P500,000.00).
Meanwhile, let the hearing of the application for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction be set on March
30, 2015 and March 31, 2015 all at 2:00 oclock on the
afternoon, and the Respondents, Hon. Conchita CarpioMorales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman and the
Department of Interior and Local Government, are hereby
ORDERED to file their Comment on the Petition for
Certiorari filed by herein petitioner within an inextendible
period of ten (10) days from receipt of a copy hereof.
Available at: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/metro-manila/03/16/15/kid-pena3-hour-makati-mayor
2
A copy of the Petition dated 11 March 2015 docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 139453 and
pending before the Honorable Courts Sixth (6th) Division is attached as Annex A
3
A copy of the Honorable Courts Resolution is attached as Annex B
1

SO ORDERED.

11. Also on 16 March 2015, Petitioner duly complied

with the condition imposed in the Honorable Courts
Resolution granting the TRO by posting a cash bond in the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 500,000.00). 4
12. However, despite due notice and receipt of the
Honorable
Courts
Resolution
granting
Petitioners
application for the TRO on the Joint Order preventively
suspending Petitioner, Respondents nevertheless willfully
and maliciously ignored and refused to comply with the
Honorable Courts directive, as can be gleaned from the
following events:
12.1 At around 12 noon of 16 March 2015,
when various media outlets had already reported
the issuance of the TRO enjoining the preventive
suspension of Petitioner, the PNP Force numbering
in the hundreds were already at the Makati City
Hall and had barricaded its grounds. (Earlier in the
day, the total number of the PNP Force even
reached several thousands.)
12.2 At around 1:30 PM, Petitioner held a
press conference and presented the Honorable
Courts Resolution to the public. This caused the
PNP Force to disperse and leave the Makati City
Hall grounds and is a recognition that the
preventive suspension of Petitioner had been
already enjoined by the Honorable Court.
12.3 At 3:09 PM, the DILG, headed by
Respondent Roxas, received a Notice of Resolution
from the Honorable Court, officially informing it
that Petitioners application for the issuance of a
TRO in connection with the Joint Order had been
granted.5
12.4 However, at around 5:00 PM, despite
due notice and receipt of the TRO, the PNP Force,
A copy of Petitioners Ex-Parte Compliance duly stamped received by the Honorable
Court is attached as Annex C.
5
Quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer from the Statement made by the DILG;
Available at: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/679212/dilg-binay-remains-suspended
4

upon orders of the DILG and instructions from

Respondents Valmoria (as the Regional Director of
the NCRPO) and Respondent Ranola (as Director of
the Southern Police District), together with
Respondent Jamias, went back to the Makati City
Hall grounds and once again barricaded the
entrance outside of the Makati City Hall Building 1
for the purpose of implementing and enforcing the
enjoined Joint Order.
12.5 United
Nationalist
Alliance
(UNA)
Secretary General, Atty. Jose Virgilio JV Bautista,
then went to meet with Respondent Jamias, who
presented himself as the commander of the PNP
Force, to inquire why the PNP Force returned
despite the issuance of the Honorable Courts
Resolution granting the TRO, and glibly retorted
that he was merely ordered by the DILG.6
12.6 When questioned as to who particularly
in the DILG gave the order for the PNP Force to
return, Respondent Jamias said Actually, aa..
Secretary.. aa.. Director Brion [referring to DILG
National Capital Region (NCR) Director Renato
Brion] requested the NCRPO... to assist them
[referring to the DILG], in the implementation of
the Suspension Order.
It appears that
Respondent Jamias was referring to Respondent
Roxas together with Respondent Brion as the
officials from the DILG who ordered the PNP Force
to return to Makati City Hall Building 1.
12.7 Atty. Bautista then informed Respondent
Jamias that he could not legally implement and
enforce the assailed Joint Order that preventively
suspended Petitioner due to the TRO issued by the
Honorable Court. However, Respondent Jamias
refused to recognize the Honorable Courts lawful
order, falsely claiming that he had no knowledge
that a TRO had been issued, as he had not yet
received a copy thereof.
12.8 When Atty. Bautista attempted to give
Respondent Jamias a copy of the Honorable
Courts Resolution, the latter refused to receive
the same, and told Atty. Bautista to serve it
through official channels.
6

A copy of Atty. JV Bautistas Affidavit is attached as Annex D.

12.9.Respondent Pena, on his part, showed

his defiance to the Honroable Courts TRO when he
told reporters that he will he will continue to act as
the acting Mayor for the City of Makati until
instructed otherwise. In this regard, based on its
press statement, the DILG said that Respondent
Pena is still acting Mayor for Makati City and it
directed Respondent Pena to continue to act and
perform the functions as acting Mayor in clear
violation of the Honorable Courts TRO.
13. It appears from the foregoing that Respondents
have no intention to comply with the TRO issued by the
Honorable Court.
14. Indeed, Respondents have blatantly displayed
their lack of respect for the Honorable Court as they
arbitrarily, whimsically and capriciously substitute their own
opinion for the Honorable Courts judicial pronouncement.
15. It is elementary that the purpose of a
restraining order is to preserve the status quo until
the hearing of the application for preliminary
injunction.7 Corollarily, status quo refers to the last actual
peaceable uncontested status, which preceded the pending
controversy. Thus, the status quo could not be that where
petitioner is preventively suspended since the suspension
did not precede the present controversy; it is the
controversy.8
16. In the instant case, when the Honorable Court
issued the TRO, the intention was to maintain the status quo
at the time of filing of the Petition in CA-G.R. SP No.
139453, and not at the time the TRO was issued. This is in
congruence with the ruling in the case of Ong vs.
COMELEC9, where the Supreme Court had the opportunity
to state:
On the last issue, we opine that just because there
has been a recount of precinct 16 and a canvass of election
returns from precinct 7 prior to receipt of the Temporary
Restraining Order by the COMELEC on June 25, 1992, it
does not mean that this petition is already moot and
academic. Private respondent must realize that when
petitioner filed his petition seeking to annul the June 2,
1992 order and the June 13, 1992 resolution as having
7
8
9

Bacolod City Water District vs. Labayen, G.R. No. 157494, December 10, 2004
Garcia vs. Mojica, G.R. No. 139043, September 10, 1999.
G.R. No. 144197, December 13, 2000.

been issued with grave abuse of discretion, petitioner's

corresponding prayer for a temporary restraining
order necessarily sought to preserve the status quo
between the parties before the issuance of the said
questioned order and resolution. Petitioner could not
have sought the preservation of the status quo at the time
the Temporary Restraining Order was received by the
COMELEC on June 25, 1992 for that would have rendered
nugatory petitioner's interest in reconvening the regular
Provincial Board of Canvassers and prevented a recount,
thus skirting the procedure laid down in the Omnibus
Election Code. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

17. However, Respondents arrogantly ignore the

status quo and the Honorable Courts directive, as they
attempt to take the law into their own hands.
18. Worse, in a Statement to the press, the DILG
likewise declared that in view of these conflicting orders,
[they would] refer this matter to Secretary of Justice Leila de
Lima for her opinion.10
19. This is clearly a blatant attempt to violate the
constitutional doctrine of separation of powers as
Respondents have audaciously announced that they would
be bringing the Honorable Courts Resolution under review of
the Executive Branch.
20. For their utter failure to comply with the Honorable
Courts Resolution granting the application for TRO, it is
imperative that contempt proceedings be commenced
against Respondents for their contumacious and willful
disobedience to the Honorable Courts lawful order.
21. Such willful, deliberate and contumacious acts and
omissions of Respondents in craftily refusing compliance
with the TRO is a patent and willful contempt of court as it
constitutes disobedience of or resistance to a lawful
writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,11 and
improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice.12
22. Any disobedience of a writ, process, order,
judgment or command of a court, or conduct that tends to
trifle with the court and impede, obstruct or otherwise
Available
at:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/453421/news/metromanila/dilg-challengescourt-tro-vs-junjun-binay-suspension.
11
Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
12
Section 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
10

degrade the administration of justice constitutes contempt of

court (Republic of the Philippines vs. Lardizabal, G.R.
No. L-4135, Sept. 30, 1978). The Supreme Court has ruled:
Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person guilty
of any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice
may be punished for contempt, and the reason that
respect for the courts guarantees their stability and
permanence. Without such guaranty, the institution of the
courts would be resting on a very loose and flimsy
foundation, such power is essential to the proper execution
and effective maintenance of judicial authority. (Andres
vs. Cabrera, Adm. Matter No. L-585, 14 Dec. 1979).

23. The Supreme Court, in the case of Montenegro

vs. Montenegro, G.R. No. 156829, 8 June 2004, through a
decision penned by Former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr.,
wherein the petitioners deliberate willfulness and even
malice in disobeying orders of the trial court was betrayed
by his pleadings and failure to file a motion for
reconsideration of the trial courts order with which he
disagreed, has ruled:
Contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or
the failure to do an act, in such a manner as to create an
affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it
is clothed. It is defined as disobedience to the court
by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and
dignity. The power to punish contempt is inherent in all
courts, because it is essential to the preservation of order
in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of
judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and,
consequently, to the due administration of justice.

24. Further, Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of

Court, in indirect contempt, provides:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after
charge and hearing. After charge in writing has been
filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to
comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by
the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person
guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for
indirect contempt:
x x x.
(b) Disobedience of or resistance
to a lawful writ, process, order, or
judgment of a court, xxx;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful
interference
with
the
process
or

proceedings of a court not constituting

direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d)
Any improper conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct,
or degrade the administration of justice;
xxx
But nothing in this section shall be so
construed as to prevent the court from issuing
process to bring the respondent into court, or
from holding him in custody pending such
proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

25. Applying the cited laws in this case, Respondents

have clearly committed acts, which constitute indirect
contempt of court and should be made to answer therefor.
Respondents continued refusal to obey the TRO issued by
the Honorable Court is a clear defiance of this Honorable
Courts authority and dignity and tends to bring the
administration of justice into disrespect. Such actions should
not be countenanced by this Honorable Court.
26. Petitioners rights pursuant to the aforesaid TRO
ought to be upheld, and the terms therein enforced, if the
said rights are to be enjoyed at all. It must further be
stressed that the continued threat of Respondents to
unlawfully remove Petitioner from office unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury suffered not only by Petitioner
but by his constituents in the City of Makati, as the City
Governments operations are severely hampered by the
mere presence of hundreds if not thousands of members of
the PNP Force at the City Hall, by Respondents obstinate
resistance to the TRO.
27. Consequently, in the face of the persistent and
wanton refusal of Respondents to honor and comply with the
lawful order of this Honorable Court, there is therefore an
urgent need to cite Respondents for indirect contempt and
immediately mete out the appropriate punishment on them
until they shall have complied with the TRO.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that, upon
the filing of this Petition

(1)The instant Petition be consolidated with the Petition

docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 pending before
the Honorable Courts Sixth (6th) Division.
(2)Respondents MANUEL A. ROXAS II, personally and in
his capacity as the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government and Ex-Officio Chairman of the National
Police Commission, RENATO BRION, personally and in
his capacity as DILG-NCR Director, CARMELO
VALMORIA, as the Regional Director of the NCRPO,
HENRY RANOLA, as the Director of the Southern
Police District, POLICE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
ELMER M. JAMIAS and ROMULO KID PEA, be cited
in Contempt of Court and be meted out the
maximum penalty under the law.
Petitioner likewise prays for other measures of relief as
may be deemed just and equitable under the premises.
Makati City for the City of Manila, 17 March 2015.
SUBIDO PAGENTE CERTEZA
MENDOZA & BINAY
Counsel for Petitioner
th
5 Floor, Prince Building, 117 Rada Street
Legazpi Village, 1129 Makati City
Tel. Nos.: (632) 893-4115; Fax No.: (632) 8450151
By:
CLARO F. CERTEZA
Roll of Attorneys No. 33002
IBP No. 852816/Lifetime/Manila II
PTR No. 4760026/1-8-15/Makati City
MCLE Exemption No. IV-000445/12-7-12/Pasig
City

MARIA PATRICIA L. ALVAREZ

Roll of Attorneys No. 49629
IBP No. 960973/Lifetime/Makati City
PTR No. 4760047/1-8-15/Makati City
MCLE No. IV-001877/4-24-13/Pasig City

10

JOSE JULIUS R. CASTRO

Roll of Attorneys No. 63216
IBP No. 968794/Lifetime/Quezon City
PTR No. 4770049/1-8-15/Makati City
Admitted to the Bar in 2013

11