COMPILED+RULE+71+DIGESTS

8/12/2019 COMPILED+RULE+71+DIGESTS

1/9

RULE 71: CONTEMPT

1. HALILI V. CIR

Facts: This case stemmed from a dispute regarding claims for overtimeof more than 500 bus drivers and conductors of Halilia Transit.While the case was before the Court of Industrial Relations, theunion of the worers and the emplo!er e"ecuted an agreementwhereb! Halili Transit bound itself to deliver a parcel of land and#$5 to the %nion, as full settlement. &o a deed of conve!ance wase"ecuted transferring the land to the union, in trust for themembers therein.

The union, through 'tt!. #ineda (led an urgent motion with the)inistr! of *abor re+uesting for the authorit! to sell the land.)otion was granted but the bu!er was hesitant to purchase theland because there was a law that re+uires an order from a court asauthorit! to sell properties in trust. &o 'tt!. #ineda (led a motion

with the &C re+uesting authorit! to sell. The &C merel! noted themotion in a resolution. evertheless, 'tt!. #ineda (led and wasgranted an authorit! to sell b! the labor arbiter. &o the sale wasconsummated resulting in the e"ecution of an escrow agreementwherein the purchase price was deposited with )anila -an. Theamounts due the claimants were eventuall! released. This includedattorne!s fees released to 'tt!. #ineda, and union e"pensesreleased to the union.

ow, 'tt!. /spinas, alleged original counsel for the union (led amotion for a temporar! mandator! restraining order to re+uire both'tt!. #ineda and the union to deposit the amounts received b! them

with the *RC. )anila -an was impleaded. Thereafter, the &Cissued the temporar! mandator! restraining order. *ater on, the &Calso declared the decision of the labor arbiter to grant the authorit!to sell null and void. ' da! before the said declaration, 'tt!. /spinas(led a motion to cite 'tt!. #ineda, Capuno acting administrator ofthe union1, and )anila ban in contempt for non2compliance withthe restraining order.

'tt!. #ineda, Capuno, and )anila -an (led a motion stating thatthe! had alread! transmitted the mone! to the *RC, thereb!rendering the motion to cite them in contempt moot and academic.'pparentl!, the amounts delivered to the *RC were incomplete. &o

'tt!. /spinas, in representation of the worers involved, (led acomment reiterating their plea to declare the 3 parties in contempt.

Issue:W4 'tt!. #ineda, Capuno, and )anila -an should be cited forcontempt

Held and Ratio:'tt!. #ineda should be cited for indirect contempt under paragraphsb1, c1 and d1 of &ection 3, Rule 67, R8C.

)anila -an substantiall! complied with the temporar! mandator!restraining order, hence cannot be cited for contempt.

Contempt against Capuno was withdrawn.

oct!ines:

Contempt of court9 de(ance of the authorit!, :ustice or dignit! ofthe court which signi(es not onl! a willful disregard or disobedienceto the courts orders, but such conduct as tends to bring theauthorit! of the court and the administration of law into disrepute

or in some manner impede the due administration of :ustice.

Power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts. It is essentialto the preservation of order in :udicial proceedings and to theenforcement of :udgments, orders, and mandates of the court, andconse+uentl!, to the due administration of :ustice.Reason for this is to guarantee the stabilit! of the :udicialinstitution.

Twofold aspect71 #roper punishment for the disrespect to the court or its

order; and

$1 To compel the guilt! part!s performance of some act ordut! re+uired of him b! the court.

Civil Contempt


2/9

made after, as remedial in nature, and ma! be reviewedonl! on appeal from the (nal decree, or in such otherappropriate mode.

Criminal contempt

Conduct directed against the authorit! and dignit! of thecourt or of a :udge, as in unlawfull! assailing or discreditingthe authorit! or dignit! of the court or :udge, or in doing a

dul! forbidden act. Where the punishment imposed, whether against a part! to

a suit or a stranger, is wholl! or primaril! to protect orvindicate the dignit! and power of the court, either b! (npa!able to the government or b! imprisonment, or both, it isdeemed a :udgment in a criminal case.

The +uestion of whether the contempt committed is civil or criminaldoes not a=ect the :urisdiction or the power of a court to punish thesame.

". PER#IN$ V. IRECTOR OF PRI$ON$>sorr!, too long. &uper important asi !ong distinctions e?FACT$: #erins was ad:udged guilt! of contempt b! the C


3/9

contempt, the government, the courts, and the people areinterested in their prosecution. In civil contempt, the parties chieE!in interest in their conduct, and prosecution are the individualswhose private rights and remedies the! were instituted to protector enforce. ' criminal contempt involves no element of personalin:ur!. -ut if contempt consists of refusal to do an act which isordered b! the court to do in favor of the other part!, then thatperson is committed until he complies with the order of the court.

&uch commitment is in the nature of an e"ecution to enforce:udgment. In another case, the court said that it is not the fact ofpunishment but rather its character and purpose that maes thedi=erence between the $ inds of contempts.


4/9

0. AN/ V. CA$TRO

FACT$: In relation to a prior adverse decision b! respondent :udge,petitioner (led an administrative complaint against respondent:udge for ignorance of the law, gross ine"cusable negligence,incompetence, manifest partialit!, grave abuse of discretion, grave

misconduct, rendering un:ust decision with the 8ce of the#residential 'ssistant on *egal '=airs. #etitioner was subse+uentl!found guilt! of @irect contempt of court with a sentence of 5 da!simprisonment and order of his arrest for his failure, despite notice,to appear on the scheduled hearing of the contempt charge againsthim1, on the basis of malicious, insolent, ine"cusable disrespect andcontemptuous attitude towards the court and towards respondent:udge.

I$$UE: W4 petitioner is guilt! of direct contempt

HEL: o, petitioner is guilt! of indirect contempt. Respondent

Nudge Castro erroneousl! argued that failure of petitioner to appear,despite notice, on the scheduled hearing of the contempt chargefor the use of derogator! language in his two letters addressed tothe 8ce of the #residential 'ssistant on *egal '=airs in anadministrative complaint against him constitutes direct contemptas the acts actuall! impeded, embarrassed and obstructed him inthe administration of :ustice. The use of disrespectful orcontemptuous language against a particular :udge in pleadingspresented in another court or proceeding is indi!ect, not direct,contempt as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presenceof or so near a court or :udge as to interrupt the administration of:ustice. If the pleading containing derogator!, o=ensive or

malicious statements is submitted in the same court or :udge inwhich the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because itis e+uivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or sonear a court or :udge as to interrupt the administration of :ustice.-eing guilt! of indirect contempt, petitioner ma! he ma! appealpursuant to &ection 70, Rule 677of the Rules of Court.

1SEC. 10. Review of judgment or order by Court of appeals or Supreme Court; bondfor stay. The judgment or order of a Court of First Instance made in a case ofcontempt punished after written charge and hearing may be reiewed by the Court of!ppea"s or the Supreme Court# but e$ecution of the judgment or order sha"" not besuspended unti" a bond is fi"ed by the person in contempt# in an amount fi$ed by theCourt of First Instance# conditioned that if the appea" be decided against him he wi""abide by and perform the judgment or order. The appea" may be ta%en as in crimina"cases.

. IN RE: #ELL2

Facts: Oell! was charged and found guilt! of contempt b! the&upreme Court. 8n


5/9


6/9

Nudge Pascott avers that the article tends to impede, obstruct,belittle and downgrade the administration of :ustice because of thedisrespectful and insulting averments made. It casts doubt on theintegrit! and honest! of Nudge Pascott and on his abilit! toadminister :ustice ob:ectivel!.

Re!noso however contends that his article does not intend to

impede nor obstruct administration of :ustice because the articlewas published after Nudge Pascott had promulgated his decision.He also contends that it will not a=ect appeal to &C because#alawan Times was being circulated in #uerto #rincesa onl!. He alsoclaims it as an e"ercise of freedom of e"pression and press. 'lso,he claims that he was :ust giving a reaction to the IT/RFI/W givenb! Nudge Pascott in the show L)agandang Pabi -a!anM where hedefended his decision in the said case.

I$$UE: @N Re6noso and e Leon s%ould 5e cited &o!conte-+t.

HELRATIO: No. @%at is in(ol(ed %e!e is a situation 8%e!et%e state-ents %a(e 5een ta


7/9

clear and present danger that the administration of :ustice wouldbe impeded.

As to issue : Where the entire case has alread! been appealed,:urisdiction to punish for contempt rests with the appellate courtwhere the appeal completel! transfers the proceedings thereto orwhere there is a tendenc! to a=ect the status +uo or otherwiseinterfere with the :urisdiction of the appellate court.

. IN RE: $OTTO

FACT$: 'tt!. Ficente &otto aano ano a!a s!a ni Fic &otto1 wasordered b! the Court to show cause wh! he shouldnt be held incontempt of court in his statement published in )anila Times inconnection with the decision of the &upreme Court in In Re #araAo.In that statement, &otto said that the &C erroneousl! interpretedthe #ress


8/9

to refrain from investigating the C8' report on illegaldisbursements in the &C because it will embarrass the Court; andthat in several instances, he was called over the phone b! a leadingmember of the Court and ased to dismiss the cases against thetwo )embers of the Court. 3 handwritten notes supposedl! sent b!members of the Court were attached to the petition. He (led man!other petitions, including one which ased for the inhibition of themembers of the Court from deciding the contempt case as the! had

lost the cold neutralit! of an impartial :udge.

Issue: W4 PonAaleA should be cited for contempt.

Held:Kes.


9/9

Documents

COMPILED+RULE+71+DIGESTS