FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Union Bank against the Tamondong Spouses to collect their unpaid loan secured from Union Bank to buy a motor vehicle. The case was dismissed and then reinstated by the Pasay RTC. When Union Bank did not take any steps to prosecute the case, it was dismissed again.

Union Bank, with petitioner as counsel, filed another complaint against the Tamondong Spouses to collect the same unpaid loan. The Pasay MTC issued a writ of replevin in response to Union Bank's action. The Tamondong Spouses filed a pleading praying for the dismissal of the case, the setting aside of the writ of replevin, and the immediate return of the replevied vehicle.

The Pasay MTC promptly acted on the Tamondong Spouses' motions and dismissed the case, recalled the writ of replevin, and ordered Union Bank to return the motor vehicle. The Pasay MTC also cited Union Bank, its collection officer, and petitioner in contempt of court for violating the rule against forum shopping and making a false certification against forum shopping. They were each fined P5,000.00.

Union Bank filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case, but also filed a notice of dismissal. The Pasay MTC denied the motion for reconsideration and ordered Union Bank to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to return the vehicle.

Union Bank questioned the manner in which the Tamondong Spouses commenced the contempt charge and prayed for the motion to cite it in contempt to be denied. The Pasay MTC issued a writ of execution to enforce the original contempt fine and ordered Union Bank to return the replevied motor vehicle. Union Bank was again cited in contempt for failing to comply and fined another P5,000.00.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and prayed for the confirmation of the notice of dismissal. The Pasay MTC denied the motion, stating that there was deliberate and willful failure to comply with the order to return the vehicle.

Petitioner then filed an administrative case against the respondent judge, alleging gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. Petitioner argues that the contempt citation should not have been directed at him since the order to return the vehicle was addressed to Union Bank alone.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner and Union Bank are guilty of forum shopping and should be held in contempt of court.

2. Whether the order declaring the petitioner in direct and indirect contempt of court was proper.

3. Whether the Pasay MTC initiated the contempt proceedings motu proprio or if it originated from the motions filed by the Tamondong Spouses.

4. Whether the absence of a verified petition affects the validity of the contempt proceedings.

5. Whether the second contempt order issued by the respondent judge was in excess of his authority.

RULING:

1. Yes, both the petitioner and Union Bank are guilty of forum shopping and should be held in contempt of court. Courts are empowered to penalize a party for filing a case that raises the same issues as another case still pending or already disposed of. Union Bank failed to disclose to the court the pendency of a previous case of the same nature involving the same parties, which is considered an abuse of the court's processes and a ground for contempt. Even if the petitioner did not personally sign the certification against forum shopping, if there is a willful and deliberate attempt to mislead the court, he can still be held in direct contempt.

2. The order declaring the petitioner in direct and indirect contempt of court was proper. The first order was issued to punish the petitioner for forum shopping and his participation in the submission of a false certification against forum shopping. The second order declaring him in indirect contempt was also issued in accordance with the correct procedure, contrary to the petitioner's claim that it was improper. The contempt proceedings were initiated by the Tamondong Spouses through their motions, which can be considered as verified petitions for purposes of initiating proceedings for indirect contempt.

3. The Pasay MTC initiated the contempt proceedings motu proprio. Disobedience to the court's order qualified as indirect contempt, and the show cause order issued by the Pasay MTC was a legitimate exercise of judicial discretion.

4. The absence of a verified petition does not affect the validity of the contempt proceedings initiated by the Pasay MTC.

5. The second contempt order was in excess of the respondent judge's authority. The petitioner could not be held in contempt for disobeying an order that was not addressed to him.

PRINCIPLES:

• Courts have the power to penalize parties for filing cases that raise the same issues as another case still pending or already disposed of, which is deemed an abuse of the court's processes.

• Failure to disclose the pendency of another proceeding concerning the same case may be considered contempt of court.

• Even if the petitioner did not personally sign the certification against forum shopping, if there is a willful and deliberate attempt to mislead the court, he can still be held in direct contempt.

• Contempt proceedings can be initiated through verified petitions or by the court motu proprio. Mere motions can be considered as verified petitions for purposes of initiating proceedings for indirect contempt.

• Courts have the inherent power to punish for contempt to maintain order in judicial proceedings and enforce their lawful orders. However, the power should be used sparingly and on the principle of preservation, not vindictiveness.

• Judges cannot be disciplined for every erroneous decision or order if there is no showing of bad faith or malice. However, they can still be held accountable for incompetence and ignorance of the law if their decisions lack factual and legal bases.

• The absence of a verified petition does not invalidate proceedings for indirect contempt initiated by the court motu proprio.