Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
BRANCH ___
Carigara, Leyte

MELQUIADES ASTORGA, CIVIL CASE No. ____________

Plaintiff, for:

-versus- INDIRECT CONTEMPT

OF COURT
VICENTE CATENZA JR.,
ANGELINA C. ARUTA, and
JOEL, CLARISSA, ADONIS,
NARDO AND BOBOY,
all surnamed CATENZA,
Defendants.

xx---------------------------------------------------xx

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF, by counsel, most respectfully alleges: THAT---

1. PLAINTIFF is a citizen of the Philippines, of legal age, married and

residng at Brgy. San Vicente, Tunga, Leyte, whereas DEFENDANTS are likewise
citizens of the Philippines, of legal age, and with postal address at Brgy. San
Antonio,Tunga, Leyte where summons and other processes of the Honorable
Court may be served.

2. Plaintiff is the complainant1 in DARAB Case No. R-0801-276-04

entitled “Melquiades Astorga vs. Hrs. of Vicente Catenza Sr., et al” for
Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Damages and Prayer of Issuance of
TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction. which is presently pending before the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Office of the Provincial
Adjudicator, Tanghas, Tolosa, Leyte.

1
Annex A – Complaint in DARAB Case No. R-0801-276-04
 2

3. On July 22, 2002 a decision2 was promulgated in DARAB Case No. R-

0801-138-01, entitled Damiana Astorga vs. Vicente Catenza, Jr. et al. for
Application of RA 3844 with Prayer for Nullification of Compromise Agreement
and Fixing of Rental, which decision has become final and executory upon failure
of the defendants to seasonably file an appeal, the dispositive portion stating in
part:

Wherefore, premises considered, decision is rendered

finding the agreement entitled MAUPAY NGA PAGTUHAY
void and of no force and effect for being contrary to law;
ordering the defendants to choose the successor of plaintiff as
tenant-leaseholder of the coconut land; ordering defendants to
maintain plaintiff in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
coconut land in question pending the selection of the
successor and; ordering the parties to execute the leasehold
contract of the subject landholding in accordance with Section
12 of RA 6657 and its implementing guidelines preferably in
the MARO of Tunga, Leyte.

SO ORDERED.

4. On April 8, 2003 a Writ of Execution3 was issued by the

ProvincialAdjudicator Prospero Rapada.

5. However, the losing defendants Vicente Catenza Jr. et al. did not
appoint petitioner’s eldest son Melquiades Astorga (herein plaintiff) as tenant-
successor, nor did they execute the agricultural leasehold contract with herein
plaintiff, considering that his mother (the petitioner) died in August 2003. This is
based on the order of succession as provided in Section 9, RA 3844, since
herein plaintiff is the eldest son and rightful successor of the winning petitioner,
the late Damiana Astorga.

6. Instead, on 1 October 2003, without the consent of the plaintiff and the
other siblings of the late Damiana Astorga, the respondents ordered hired
laborers to harvest the coconut fruits from the land in question, and illegally
installed defendant BOBOY CATENZA as tenant of the subject landholding, in
defiance to the above decision and writ of execution issued by the Provincial
Adjudicator.

2
Annex B – Decision dated 22 July 2002 in DARAB Case No. R-0801-138-01
3
Annex C – Writ of Execution dated 8 April 2003
 3

7. Thus, upon motion of herein plaintiff for a supervised harvest pending

execution of the leasehold contract and immediate succession of tenancy right,
the Provincial Adjudicator issued in the same case an Order4 dated 6 October
2003.

8. On the same date, in a letter5 of instant date sent to the Chief of Police
of PNP Tunga Station, the Sheriff of the Provincial Adjudicator sought the
assistance of the PNP Tunga Station to enforce the supervised harvest.

9. Thereafter, plaintiff was installed in the land, and was able to perform
his duties as tenant of the land until April 2004.

10. On the latter part of May 2004, defendants again intruded into the
cocoland and harvested the coconuts of the subject landholding, but were
stopped by policemen whom plaintiff asked for assistance.

11. Again, on July 2004, defendants through hired laborers constructed a

house on the landholding in question and thereafter harvested coconuts and
successfully processed them into copra, despite plaintiff’s strong defiance, and
were repeated again every month up to the time plaintiff filed DARAB Case No.
R-0801-276-04 for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession with Damages and
Prayer for Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction.

12. Acting on plaintiff’s prayer for an injunctive relief, the Provincial

Adjudicator issued a Temporary Restraining Order6 dated 1 February 2005,
enjoining defendants from entering the subject coconut land for the purpose of
harvesting the coconut fruits and from cultivating the land, and from erecting any
structure within the land without the consent of plaintiff.

13. The PARAD Sheriff issued a Return of Service7 dated 15 February

2005 as well as a Return of Service8 dated 28 February 2005, stating that he
served a copy of the TRO to defendants on 9 February 2005, but defendants
refused to receive it, as indicated in the Sheriff’s return.

4
Annex D – Order dated 6 October 2003
5
Annex E – Letter dated 6 October 2003 by PARAD Sheriff to COP, PNP Tunga, Leyte
6
Annex F – Temporary Restraining Order dated 1 February 2005
7
Annex G – Return of Service dated 15 February 2005
8
Annex H – Return of Service dated 28 February 2005
 4

6. Despite receipts of the Order, defendants failed and refused to comply

with the decision promulgated on 22 July 2002, the Writ of Execution as well as
the Temporary Restraining Order issued in connection with the pending case
filed by herein plaintiff with the Provincial Adjudicator.

7. The reckless failure and refusal of the defendants to comply with the
aforesaid Decision, Writ of Execution, and Temporary Restraining Order issued
by the Provincial adjudicator (PARAD) constitutes a contemptuous defiance of
these valid orders issuing from a legitimate authority, not only throwing into
disrepute or disrespect the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator of PARAD in
Tanghas, Tolosa, Leyte, but also obstructing the administration of justice.

8. Since the contemptuous acts complained of against the defendants by

the plaintiff is disobeying the lawful writs/order of the Provincial Adjudicator was
committed in Brgy. San Vicente, Tunga, Leyte, venue is properly laid before the
Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte. (Sec. 12, Rule 71, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure; Gonzales vs. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 220; Abaya vs. Villegas, 18 SCRA 1034;
Mitra vs. Subido, 21 SCRA 127).

8. The plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies, as evidenced by

the decision/writ of execution/TRO which he secured from the quasi-judicial
office, all of which have been disregarded by the defendants.

9. As a result of the contemptuous acts of the defendants, the plaintiff

suffered actual damages equivalent to 50% of the net proceeds of the copra in
October 2003, May and July 2004 and every month thereafter up to October
2004, estimated at about the sum of not less than P20,000.00; moral damages in
the sum of P50,000.00, exemplary damages amounting to P5,000.00, attorney’s
fees in the sum of P20,000.00 and costs of litigation amounting to P10,000.00.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that, after

notice and hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the
defendants, thus:
 5

1. Declaring and penalizing all defendants in contempt of court as defined

and penalized in paragraph (b), Section 3 and Section 7, Rule 71 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Ordering all defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff --

2.1. actual damages equivalent to 50% of the net proceeds of the

copra in October 2003, May and July 2004 and every month thereafter up
to October 2004, in the sum of not less than P20,000.00;

2.2. moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00,

2.3. exemplary damages amounting to P5,000.00,

2.4. attorney’s fees in the sum of P20,000.00

2.5. and costs of litigation amounting to P10,000.00.

Plaintiff prays for such other relief and remedies just and equitable in the
premises.

Tacloban City. March 14, 2005.

LEO S. GIRON
Counsel for the Plaintiff
253 Avenida Veteranos, Tacloban City
Roll No. 37379
IBP Lifetime No. 00733
PTR No. 5803034; 1-3-05; Tacloban City
 6

Republic of the Philippines )

Province of Leyte )SS
In the City of Tacloban )

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, MELQUIADES ASTORGA, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident

of Brgy. San Vicente, Tunga, Leyte, after having been duly sworn according to
law, hereby depose and say: THAT---

I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case; that I have caused the

foregoing Complaint and its Annexes to be prepared and filed; that I have read
and fully understood all the allegations therein contained; and that the same are
all true and correct according to my own personal knowledge and belief, and
based on genuine and authentic documents; and further,

I have not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof,
or any other tribunal or agency ;

3. That except for DARAB Case No. R-0801-276-04 entitled “Melquiades

Astorga vs. Hrs. of Vicente Catenza Sr., et al” for Maintenance of Peaceful
Possession with Damages and Prayer of Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction. which is presently pending before the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board, Office of the Provincial Adjudicator, Tanghas, Tolosa, Leyte,
there is no similar action or proceeding which has been filed or is pending before
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any
other tribunal or agency.

That DARAB Case No. R-08-1-238-01, entitled Damiana Astorga vs.

Vicente Catenza, Jr. et al. for Application of RA 3844 with Prayer for Nullification
of Compromise Agreement and Fixing of Rental, has been decided with finality
on July 22, 2002.

That if I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has

been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I shall undertake to
promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within
five (5) days therefor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14 March

2005 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

MELQUIADES ASTORGA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14 March 2005 at

Tacloban City, Philippines.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
SERIES OF 2005