RULE 71 -

CONTEMPT
DEFINITION OF CONTEMPT OF COURT

• Contempt is disobedience and utter disregard to the court by

acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It also
includes conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and
the administration of law into disrepute or in a manner which
impedes the due administration of justice. (Siy v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 158971, 2005)
NATURE OF CONTEMPT
CIVIL CONTEMPT
It is the failure to do something
ordered to be done by a court or a
judge for the benefit of the opposing
party therein and is therefore an
offense against the party in whose
behalf the violated order was made.
The purpose is to compensate for the
benefit of a party.
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
It is a conduct directed against the
authority and dignity of the court or a
judge acting judicially; it is an
obstruction of the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court
into disrepute or disrespect.
The purpose is to punish, to vindicate
the authority of the court and protect
its outraged dignity.
MANNER OF COMMISSION
DIRECT CONTEMPT INDIRECT CONTEMPT
In general, it is committed in the presence of or so It is not committed in the presence of the court,
near the court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt but done at a distance which tends to belittle,
the proceedings before it. degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and
justice.
Acts constituting direct contempt are: Acts constituting indirect contempt are:
1. Misbehavior in the presence of or so near the 1. Any improper conduct tending, directly or
court as to obstruct or interrupt the indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
proceedings before it; administration of justice;

2. Refusal to be sworn as a witness or to answer 2. Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a

as a witness; court, and acting as such without authority;

3. Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or deposition
when lawfully required to do so;
4. Acts of a party or a counsel which constitute
willful and deliberate forum shopping;
3. Failure to obey a subpoena duly served; and
4. The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or
property in the custody of an officer by virtue of
an order or process of a court held by him.
HOW CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED

Two Modes of Commencing Proceeding for Indirect Contempt:

1. Motu proprio by the court through an order or any other formal charge
requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt; and
2. Through a verified petition charging for indirect contempt with supporting
particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and
upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil
actions in the court concerned.
WHEN IMPRISONMENT SHALL BE IMPOSED

• When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet
in the power of the respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the
court concerned until he performs it. (Sec. 8, Rule 71)

• The reason for indefinite incarceration in civil contempt proceedings, in proper

cases, is that it is remedial, preservative, or coercive in nature. The punishment is
imposed for the benefit of a complainant or a party to a suit who has been
injured.
POWER OF CONTEMPT BY THE SENATE IN INQUIRIES
IN AID OF LEGISLATION

• The period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by

the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until
the termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said power
is invoked.

• Accordingly, as long as there is a legitimate legislative inquiry, then

the inherent power of contempt by the Senate may be properly
exercised.
 PENALTY FOR DIRECT CONTEMPT

•The penalty for direct contempt depends upon the court to which the act was committed:
• 1. If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against an RTC or a court of equivalent or
higher rank, the penalty is a fine not exceeding 2,000 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding 10 days,
or both;
• 2. If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against a lower court, the penalty is a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos or imprisonment not exceeding 1 day, or both (Sec. 1, Rule 71);
•If the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet within the power of the
respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs it.
 REMEDY IN DIRECT CONTEMPT

•The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom but may avail
himself of the remedies of special civil action of certiorari or prohibition directed against the court,
which adjudged him in direct contempt. (Sec. 2, Rule 71)
•Pending the resolution of the petition for certiorari or prohibition, the execution of the judgment
shall be suspended, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the
judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be
decided against him. (Sec. 2, Rule 7; Canada v. Suerte, 474 SCRA 379)
COMMENCEMENT OF DIRECT CONTEMPT PROCEEDING

• No formal proceeding is required to cite a person in direct contempt. The court against which the
contempt is directed may summarily adjudge a person in direct contempt. (Sec. 1 Rule 71; Encinas
v. National Bookstore Inc., G.R. No. 162704 July 28, 2005
 PENALTY FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT

•The punishment for indirect contempt depends upon the level of the court against which the act was committed:
•1. Where the act was committed against an RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a
fine not exceeding Php 30,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both;
• 2. Where the act was committed against a lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding 5,000 pesos
or imprisonment not exceeding one month, or both. Aside from the applicable penalties, if the contempt consists
in the violation of a writ of injunction, TRO or status quo order, he may also be ordered to make complete
restitution to the party injured by such violation of the property involved or such amount as may be alleged and
proved (Sec. 7, Rule 71);
•3. Where the act was committed against a person or entity exercising quasi-judicial functions, the penalty
imposed shall depend upon the provisions of the law which authorizes a penalty for contempt against such
persons or entities.
 REMEDY IN INDIRECT CONTEMPT

•Appeal (by notice of appeal)

•The person adjudged in indirect contempt may appeal from the judgment or final order of the court
in the same manner as in criminal cases.
•The appeal will not however have the effect of suspending the judgment if the person adjudged in
contempt does not file a bond in an amount fixed by the court from which the appeal is taken. This
bond is conditioned upon his performance of the judgment or final order if the appeal is decided
against him. (Sec. 11, Rule 71).
 COMMENCEMENT OF CONTEMPT IN INDIRECT PROCEEDING

•1. May be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by order or other
formal charge by the court requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt; or
• NOTE: This procedure applies only when the indirect contempt is committed against a court of judge
possessed and clothed with contempt powers.
•2. By a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of the necessary documents and
papers (independent action; must comply with requirements of an initiatory pleadings). (Sec. 4, Rule 71)
• NOTE: If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the
petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately,
unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for
joint hearing and decision. (Sec. 4, Rule 71)
 COURT THAT HAS JURISDICTION

•1. Where the act was committed against a RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an
officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with such court;
•2. Where the act was committed against a lower court, the charge may be filed with the RTC in
which the lower court is sitting. It may also be filed in lower court against which the contempt was
allegedly committed. The decision of the lower court is subject to appeal to RTC;
•3. Where the act was committed against persons or entities exercising quasi-judicial functions, the
charge shall be filed in RTC of the place wherein the contempt was committed. (Sec. 12, Rule 71;
Riano, 2012)
OCA V. CUSTODIO, G.R. NO. 199825, 26 JULY 2017

• Facts: A TRO was filed by Custodio against Bro. Bernardo Oca, et al. in the RTC to prevent another trustee from calling a
special membership meeting in order to remove the complainant from the Board of Trustees. The case was dismissed, and the
petitioner was subsequently removed from the Board of Trustees and as Curriculum Administrator. Eventually, a complaint for
contempt of court was filed by the original complainant against the adverse parties for their alleged willful disobedience to the
various orders of the trial court.
Are the parties guilty of contempt of court?
• Ruling: YES. The purpose of the filing and the nature of the contempt proceeding show that the original complainant was
seeking enforcement of the trial court orders in the intra-corporate controversy because the adverse parties refused to comply.
Hence, this is a civil contempt case, which does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has ruled that while the
power to cite parties in contempt should be used sparingly, it should be allowed to exercise its power of contempt to maintain
the respect due to it and to ensure the infallibility of justice where the defiance is so clear and contumacious and there is an
evident refusal to obey.
 LUCIANO LADANO V. FELINO NERI, EDWIN SOTO, ADAN ESPANOLA AND
ERNESTO BLANC G.R. NO. 178622, NOVEMBER 12, 2012

• Facts: A complaint was filed by Ladano before the DARAB against Neri alleging that the latter forcibly entered Ladano’s two-hectare land by fencing the
property and destroying some of the trees planted thereon. Ladano prayed that he be declared the rightful "occupant/tiller" of the property, with the right to
security of tenure thereon. Later, Ladano filed a Motion for Urgent Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order TRO before the Court. He alleged that,
despite the pendency of his appeal, Neri bulldozed the subject land and destroyed Ladano’s trees. The Court granted petitioner’s motion and issued a TRO.
Thereafter, Ladano filed an Urgent Motion to Cite Neri in Contempt of Court. He alleged that Neri defied the Courts TRO by bulldozing the subject
property. Neri denied the allegations. He maintained that the pictures attached to Ladano’s motion were taken way back in 2003 and were not truthful
representations of the current state of the subject property.

• Is Neri guilty of indirect contempt?

• Ruling: NO. A charge for indirect contempt, such as disobedience to a courts lawful order, is initiated either motu proprio by order of or a formal charge by
the offended court, or by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full
compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. It cannot be initiated by a mere motion, such as the
one that petitioner filed. Ladano failed to substantiate his factual allegation that respondents violated the TRO. The entries in the barangay and police
blotters attached to his motion carry little weight or probative value as they are not conclusive evidence of the truth thereof but merely of the fact that these
entries were made. The pictures depicting bulldozing activities likewise contained no indication that they were taken after the Court’s issuance of the
restraining order.
SPOUSES TRINIDAD V. FAMA REALTY INC., G. R.
NO. 203336, JUNE 06, 2016)
Facts: Spouses Trinidad filed an action for specific performance before the HLURB against FAMA. After years of litigation, a
Decision was issued finally disposing the case. A writ of execution was issued by the HLURB, however, the case still continued
and execution was not yet had. This prompted spouses Trinidad to file a Petition for Contempt before the Supreme Court, praying
that FAMA be cited for indirect contempt for delaying the execution of the HLURB Board’s April 2, 1997 Decision. Petitioners
further pray that the Court order the dismissal of respondents’ HLURB appeal, which to them is unauthorized and prohibited under
the HLURB Rules of Procedure.

Is Petition for Contempt filed before the Supreme Court in an HLURB case proper?

Ruling: NO. Petitioners should have sought to cite respondents in contempt before the HLURB itself, and not the Supreme Court.
Where contempt is committed against quasi--judicial entities, the filing of contempt charges in court is observed only when there is
no law granting contempt powers to these quasi-judicial entities. Executive Order No. 648 (HLURB Charter) and the HLURB
Revised Rules of Procedure respectively granted the HLURB Board the power to cite and declare any person, entity or enterprise
in direct or indirect contempt.
 P/SUPT. HANSEL M. MARANTAN–VERSUS- ATTY. JOSE MANUEL DIOKNO AND
MONIQUE CU-UNJIENG LA'O, G.R. NO. 205956, THIRD DIVISION, FEBRUARY 12, 2014,
MENDOZA

• FACTS: Marantan alleges that, riding on the unpopularity of the Atimonan incident, La’O and her counsel, Atty. Diokno, and one Ernesto Manzano, organized and conducted a
televised/radio broadcasted press conference. During the press conference, they maliciously made intemperate and unreasonable comments on the conduct of the Court in handling G.R. No.
199462, as well as contumacious comments on the merits of the criminal cases before the RTC, branding Marantan and his co-accused guilty of murder in the Ortigas incident. This
interview was featured in "TV Patrol," an ABS-CBN news program.

• Marantan submits that the respondents violated the sub judice rule, making them liable for indirect contempt under Section 3(d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, for their contemptuous
statements and improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. He argues that their pronouncements and malicious comments
delved not only on the supposed inaction of the Court in resolving the petitions filed, but also on the merits of the criminal cases before the RTC and prematurely concluded that he and his
co-accused are guilty of murder.

• Is he correct?

• Ruling: The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing the
administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

• The contemptuous statements made by the respondents allegedly relate to the merits of the case, particularly the guilt of petitioner, and the conduct of the Court as to its failure to decide
G.R. No. 199462. As to the merits, the comments seem to be what the respondents claim to be an expression of their opinion that their loved ones were murdered by Marantan. This is
merely a reiteration of their position in G.R. No. 199462, which precisely calls the Court to upgrade the charges from homicide to murder. The Court detects no malice on the face of the
said statements. The mere restatement of their argument in their petition cannot actually, or does not even tend to, influence the Court. As to the conduct of the Court, a review of the
respondents' comments reveals that they were simply stating that it had not yet resolved their petition. There was no complaint, express or implied, that an inordinate amount of time had
passed since the petition was filed without any action from the Court. There appears no attack or insult on the dignity of the Court either.