Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49791:gr-155631-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:19:28+00:00

Document:
ROMEO T. AQUINO, Petitioner, v. JENNIFER NG, Respondent.
Petitioner assails in the present Petition for Review on Certiorarithe Decision dated January 31, 2002 and Resolution dated October 9, 2002, rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 61464 sustaining the Order dated October 3, 2000 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 231 in Civil Case No. 98-0870, finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt.
Civil Case No. 98-0870 is an action for Collection of Sum of Money with Damages filed by respondent against Doughmix, Inc. (Doughmix), represented by petitioner as its General Manager.1 In its Decision dated August 23, 1999,2 the RTC held Doughmix liable to respondent in the amount of P360,357.00 plus legal interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit. The RTC Decision became final and executory for failure of Doughmix to file a notice of appeal on time and pay the appropriate docket fees. Upon motion of respondent, the RTC, in its Order dated October 12, 1999, granted the issuance of a writ of execution.
WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, defendant's General Manager in the person of Romeo Aquino is hereby found guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(B) of Rule 71, Rules of Court and is sentenced to be imprisoned until he obeys the Order, an act still within his power to perform, in accordance with Section 8 of Rule 71, Rules of Court.
Failing to implement the writ of execution, and it appearing that petitioner furnished an incorrect address of Doughmix, respondent filed a "Motion to Reinstate the Contempt Order Against the Defendant." The RTC then conducted a summary hearing where petitioner claimed that he made an honest mistake in giving a wrong address of Doughmix.
In a summary hearing in connection with plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Contempt Order, Romeo Aquino appeared and stated in his defense that he made an honest mistake in telling the new address of defendant Doughmix. But this Court is not convinced. Based on the record of the testimony in open court, it appears that he was firm as he stated in no uncertain and unequivocal manner the said address leading this Court to conclude that he deliberately intended to foil or frustrate the implementation of the Writ of Execution.
Wherefore, in view thereof, plaintiff's motion is hereby granted. Let the Order dated March 15, 2000 be reinstated and an alias Writ of Execution of the decision of this case be issued and implemented forthwith.
Thus, petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, questioning the orders issued by the RTC.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO REALIZE THAT PETITIONER HAD MADE AN HONEST MISTAKE IN GIVING THE WRONG ADDRESS OF DOUGHMIX CORPORATION DURING THE HEARING ON 29 MAY 2000. IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE PETITIONER NEVER INTENDED TO FOIL OR FRUSTRATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 98-0870, AS ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATED DURING THE HEARING HELD ON 16 AUGUST 2000 WHEN PETITIONER ADMITTED HIS MISTAKE AND SUPPLIED THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF DOUGHMIX CORPORATION.
THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW IN FINDING NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WAS COMMITTED BY PUBLIC RESPONDENT WHEN IT ISSUED THE ORDER DATED 3 OCTOBER 2000, GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO REINSTATE THE CONTEMPT ORDER CONSIDERING THAT (1) THE INCIDENTS WHICH ARE BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONTEMPT ORDERS STEM FROM DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS, AND (2) THE RESPONDENT'S REMEDY, IF ANY, WAS TO FILE A SEPARATE AND/OR NEW PETITION TO HAVE PETITIONER CITED ANEW FOR CONTEMPT, AND FOR THAT REASON, THE SAME CONSTITUTED A VIOLATION OF PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
There is grave abuse of discretion when a court acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment, as when the assailed order is bereft of any factual and legal justification.11 In this case, it may be that the RTC had factual bases for finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt of court; nevertheless, the Court finds that its Order dated October 3, 2000, together with the reinstated Order dated March 15, 2000, should be struck down for having been rendered in complete disregard of the Rules.
Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, specifically outlines the procedural requisites before one may be punished for indirect contempt, to wit: (1) the filing of a written charge and (2) the opportunity to be heard given to the accused himself or his counsel.
Section 4. - 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.
Based on the foregoing provision, indirect contempt can be initiated motu proprio by the court itself or by filing a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefor.
Since the Rules specifically provide that a charge for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition,14 it was erroneous for the RTC to have entertained and granted respondent's motions.
1. This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm the proper procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. While such proceeding has been classified as a special civil action under the former Rules, the heterogeneous practice, tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a mere motion without paying any docket or lawful fees therefor and without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is now required in the second paragraph of this amended section.
On such flaw alone, the CA seriously erred in affirming the assailed Orders of the RTC. The trial court exceeded its authority when it entertained respondent's motions which are not in compliance with the dictates of the Rules.
With regard to the second contempt charge, it appears that the RTC conducted a summary hearing. The Court, however, finds that, while the RTC may have had valid reasons to cite petitioner in contempt, nevertheless, it was a serious error and an act of grave abuse of discretion for the RTC to merely reinstate its Order dated March 15, 2000. As correctly argued by petitioner, the two contempt charges arose from different factual antecedents. The first contempt citation originated from petitioner's failure to appear during the hearing held on December 9, 1999 despite due notice. On the other hand, the second contempt citation was a result of petitioner's furnishing the court an incorrect address of Doughmix.
Moreover, the Order dated March 15, 2000 provided for the penalty of imprisonment until such time petitioner obeys the order of the court requiring him to attend the hearing. Obviously, said Order cannot be made applicable to petitioner's second indirect contempt citation, since it was issued by the RTC in order to compel petitioner to comply with its order, a circumstance which is absent in the second citation.
Contempt of court has been distinctly described as an offense against the State and not against the judge personally. To reiterate, a judge must always remember that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are not personal, because that power is intended as a safeguard, not for judges as persons, but for the functions they exercise.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2002 and Resolution dated October 9, 2002 of the Court of Appeals are SET ASIDE. The Orders dated March 15, 2000 and October 3, 2000, issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 231, are NULLIFIED.
1 CA rollo, pp. 12-14.
11 The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee v. Majaducon, 455 Phil. 61, 71 (2003).
12 CA rollo, pp. 34-35.
14 Nedia v. LaviÃ±a, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 10, 17; Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, 398 Phil. 441, 462 (2000).
15 455 Phil. 750, 758-759 (2003).
16 Bruan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149428, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 90, 96.
17 Soriano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128938, June 4, 2004, 431 SCRA 1, 8.
18 Soriano v. Court of Appeals, supra note 17, at 8.
20 Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, supra note 14, at 468.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.