View full case

RAMON D. MONTENEGRO v. “MONTENEGRO

FACTS:

The petitioner, who was residing in Canada, filed a motion to quash a subpoena ad testificandum for a hearing on 3 July 2002, claiming that he lived more than 100 kilometers away from Bacolod City where the hearing was scheduled. However, he failed to mention that he was still in Canada at that time. The trial court denied the motion and rescheduled the hearing for 23 October 2002. On the day before the scheduled hearing, the petitioner informed the court that he was still in Canada and unable to attend, but requested for a rescheduling on 9 December 2002. The trial court considered his actions as willful disobedience of the court's orders and found him in contempt of court. As a result, the petitioner was sentenced to three months imprisonment and imposed a fine of twenty thousand pesos. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the trial court. This prompted him to file a petition for review on certiorari, raising questions of law.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petitioner's refusal to attend a hearing for his examination as a judgment obligor constitutes indirect contempt.

  2. Whether the contemptuous act committed by the petitioner is civil or criminal in nature.

  3. Whether the trial court committed abuse of discretion in scheduling the examination of the petitioner as a judgment obligor.

  4. Whether the penalties imposed by the trial court were within its allowable powers.

  5. Whether or not the penalty of imprisonment may still be imposed despite the delay in the performance of the act ordered by the court.

  6. Whether or not the petitioner's claim of insolvency is valid and should be considered in the imposition of penalties.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the petitioner's refusal to attend a hearing for his examination as a judgment obligor constitutes indirect contempt. Indirect contempt may include the disobedience or resistance to a lawful order of a court. In this case, the petitioner's refusal to be examined as ordered by the trial court constitutes a violation of a lawful order and therefore falls within the definition of indirect contempt.

  2. The contemptuous act committed by the petitioner is civil in nature. Civil contempt refers to the failure to comply with a court order for the benefit of the opposing party. In this case, the petitioner's refusal to be examined as a judgment obligor is an offense against the respondent and not an act directed against the authority and dignity of the court. Therefore, it is considered civil contempt.

  3. The trial court did not commit abuse of discretion in scheduling the examination of the petitioner as a judgment obligor. Section 36 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows the plaintiff who is a judgment obligee to examine the defendant as a judgment obligor at any time after the return of the writ of execution is made. The trial court acted judiciously in scheduling the examination to avoid a miscarriage of justice, particularly considering that the petitioner was reported to be about to leave for Canada, which he did not refute.

  4. The penalties imposed by the trial court were within its allowable powers. Under Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person found guilty of contempt of court against a Regional Trial Court may be punished with a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both. In this case, the penalties of imprisonment for three months and a fine of twenty thousand pesos were within the allowable penalties the trial court may impose. The imprisonment and fine may be imposed one at a time or together. The nature of the contemptuous acts committed in this case were civil in nature, warranting indefinite incarceration in civil contempt proceedings to compel compliance with the court's order.

  5. The penalty of imprisonment may no longer be imposed since the act ordered by the court has already been performed, albeit belatedly and with an unreasonable delay. The contemnor cannot be imprisoned if he has already complied with the court's order.

  6. The petitioner's claim of insolvency is negated by his frequent travels to Canada. The court thus exhorts the parties, particularly the petitioner, to resort to all reasonable means to fully satisfy the judgment for support based on the compromise agreement.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Contempt of court involves an act or failure to act that creates an affront to the court and its authority and dignity.

  • The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to preserve order and enforce court orders.

  • There are two types of contempt: direct contempt and indirect contempt.

  • Indirect contempt may be initiated by the court or through the filing of a verified petition.

  • Contempt may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act.

  • Civil contempt refers to the failure to comply with a court order for the benefit of the opposing party.

  • Criminal contempt is an act obstructing the administration of justice that brings the court into disrepute or disrespect.

  • A plaintiff who is a judgment obligee has the right to examine the defendant as a judgment obligor at any time after the return of the writ of execution is made.

  • A trial court has the authority to schedule the examination of a judgment obligor to avoid a miscarriage of justice, considering the circumstances such as the judgment obligor's imminent departure from the country.

  • Penalties for contempt of court in civil contempt proceedings may include imprisonment and/or fines, imposed for the benefit of the injured party and to compel compliance with court orders.

  • The penalty of imprisonment for contempt may be imposed for the willful disobedience or resistance of the orders or decrees of the court.

  • The contemnor has the power to set himself free by complying with the court's order.

  • A claim of insolvency may be negated if the party has engaged in activities or behavior inconsistent with the claim, such as frequent travels to another country.