CONTEMPT OF COURT – a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority

CONTEMPT – in its broad sense, is a disregard of, or disobedience to, the rules or orders of a legislative or judicial body or an interruption of its
proceedings by disorderly behavior or insolent language in its presence or so near thereto as to disturb its proceedings or to impair the respect due
to such a body (Ligon v. RTC of Makati)
Contempt Power is INHERENT in Courts – The power to punish for contempt essentially exists for:
1. the preservation of order in judicial proceedings; and
2. for the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the courts; and
3. consequently, for the due administration of justice.
– Preservative not vindictive; Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised. (BPI v. Calanza)
Purposes and Nature of Contempt Proceedings – Dual Function of Contempt Proceedings:
1. Vindication of public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; and
2. coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the Court, and also to secure the rights of the
parties to a suit awarded by the Court (Regalado v. Go).
2 KINDS OF CONTEMPT OF COURT:
1. Direct Contempt (contempt in facie curiae) – It can be punished summarily without hearing. It is conduct directed against or assailing the
authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act (Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc.). EXAMPLES of Specific
Acts punishable as direct contempt:
a. misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same [or
interrupt the administration of justice] (e.g. when a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious statements is submitted in the
same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending);
b. disrespect toward the court;
c. offensive personalities toward others
d. refusal to be sworn as a witness or to answer as a witness; and
e. refusal to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so (Section 1, Rule 71);
f. the acts of a party or a counsel which constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping (Section 5, Rule 7)
2. Indirect Contempt (constructive contempt) – NOT COMMITTED in the presence of or so near a court but constitutes contempt as:
a. when an officer of the court misbehaves in the performance of his official functions;
b. when a person disobeys or resists a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court;
c. when a person assumes to be an attorney or an officer of a court and acting as such without authority; or
d. performs any conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice (Oca v. Custodio);
e. any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes of a court not constituting direct contempt;
f. failure to obey a subpoena duly served; or
g. 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
(Section 3, Rule 71);
h. violation of the sub judice rule (a rule which 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) (Section 3[d], Rule 71);
i. failure of the counsel to inform the court of the death of his client (Section 3, Rule 71) (since it constitutes an improper conduct tending to
impede the administration of justice; it is also a ground for disciplinary action under Section 16, Rule 3);
j. the act of re-entry by a party into the land from which he was ordered by the court to vacate even after the lapse of 5years from the date
of the execution of the judgment (Benedicto v. Canada);
k. in a petition for a writ of Kalikasan, the court may, after hearing, punish the respondent who refuses or unduly delays the filing of a return,
or who makes a false return, and punish a person who disobeys or resists a lawful order of the court for indirect contempt (Sec 13, Rule
7);
l. Failure to remit and/or withhold or any delay in the remittance of support to the woman and/or her child without justifiable cause shall
render the respondent or his employer liable for indirect contempt of court (Sec.8[g], R.A. 9262).
No Formal Proceeding is Required (Summary Proceedings) to cite a person in direct contempt – The court may summarily adjudge one in direct
contempt WITHOUT a hearing (Section1, Rule 71). The court may proceed, upon its own knowledge of the facts without further proof and without
issue or trial in any form, to punish a contempt committed directly under its eye or within its view. But there must be ADEQUATE FACTS to support
a summary order for contempt in the presence of the court (Lorenzo Shipping Corp. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines).
PENALTIES for Direct Contempt – depends upon the court against which the act was committed:
1. If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against a RTC or a court of equivalent or higher rank – fine NOT EXCEEDING P
2,000.00 or imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING 10days, or both (Section 1, Rule 71)
2. If the act constituting direct contempt was committed against a lower court – fine NOT EXCEEDING P 200.00 or imprisonment NOT
EXCEEDING 1day, or both (Section 1, Rule 71)
3. 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 (Section 8, Rule 71)
REMEDY of a Person Adjudged in Direct Contempt (He MAY NOT APPEAL therefrom):
1. petition for certiorari; or
2. prohibition directed against the court which adjudged him in direct contempt (Section 2, Rule 71)
Pending the resolution of the petition for certiorari or prohibition, the execution of the judgment for direct contempt shall be SUSPENDED.
However, suspension SHALL TAKE PLACE only if the person adjudged in contempt FILES A BOND fixed by the court which rendered the
judgment. This bond is conditioned upon his performance of the judgment should the petition be decided against him (Section 2, Rule 71).
NATURE of Indirect Contempt – The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are CRIMINAL in nature. INTENT is a necessary element in
criminal contempt, and no one can be punished for it unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it (Maranian v. Diokno)
Clear and Present Danger Rule in Contempt – means that the evil consequence of the comment must be “extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high” before an utterance can be punished; freedom of speech SHOULD NOT be impaired through the exercise of the power
of contempt of court unless there is no doubt that the utterances in question make a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. It
must constitute an imminent, not merely a likely, threat (Marantan v. Diokno)
– The power of contempt should be balanced with the right to freedom of expression, especially when it may have the effect of stifling
comment on public matters. Freedom of expression must always be protected to the fullest extent possible (Roque, Jr. v. AFP).
HOW A PROCEEDING FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT IS COMMENCED – Unlike direct contempt which is summary, an act constituting an indirect
contempt is to be PUNISHED ONLY AFTER a charge in writing and hearing. The requirement of a written charge and hearing shall not prevent the
court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending the proceedings (Section 3, Rule 71).
– Procedural Requisites:
a. Charge in writing;
b. Opportunity for the person charged to appear and explain his conduct; and
c. Opportunity to be heard by himself or counsel (Barredo-Fuentes v. Albarracin).
– In contempt proceedings, the respondent must be given the right to defend himself or herself and have a day in court – a basic
requirement of due process. 2 ways a person can be charged with INDIRECT CONTEMPT:
a. Through a VERIFIED PETITION; and
b. By ORDER or FORMAL CHARGE initiated by the court motu propio (Section 4, Rule 71).
– If the charge is initiated motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed, it is commenced by an order of the same
court or any formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt (Section 4, Rule 71).
 – If initiated by someone other than the court, the charge is commenced by FILING A VERIFIED PETITION which shall be
accompanied by supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein.
– The petition shall comply with the requirements for the filing of INITIATORY PLEADINGS for civil actions in the court concerned (Section
4, Rule 71). Since it is an initiatory pleading, the petition MUST CONTAIN a CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING mandated
under Section 5, Rule 7, as amended. The VERIFIED PETITION for contempt shall be docketed, heard and decided separately unless
the court in its discretion orders the contempt charge, which arose out of or related to the principal action, to be CONSOLIDATED with
the main action for joint hearing and decision (Comilang v. Belen).
– The procedural requirements are MANDATORY considering that contempt proceedings against a person are treated as criminal in
nature (OCA v. Lerma).
Necessity for Hearing
– A respondent charged with INDIRECT CONTEMPT must be served with a copy of the petition.
– Unlike in civil actions, the court DOES NOT ISSUE SUMMONS on the respondent. The respondent is NOT REQUIRED to file a formal
answer similar to that in ordinary civil actions. However, the court must set the contempt charge for hearing on a fixed date and time on
which the respondent must make his appearance to answer the charge.
– On the date and time of the hearing, the court shall proceed to investigate the charges and consider such answer or testimony as the
respondent may make or offer (Section 6, Rule 71).
– If he (respondent) fails to appear on the date of the hearing AFTER DUE NOTICE without justifiable reason, the court may order his
arrest, just like the accused in a criminal case who fails to appear when so required. The court DOES NOT declare respondent in default.
Section 3, Rule 71 grants the court the authority to hold the respondent in custody pending the proceedings.
– If the hearing is NOT ORDERED to be had forthwith, the respondent may be released from custody upon the FILING OF A BOND for his
appearance at the hearing (Section 6, Rule 71).
–
COURT WHERE THE CHARGE FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT IS TO BE FILED
Contemptuous act committed Court Where The Charge For Indirect Contempt Is To Be Filed
The act was committed against a RTC or a court of The charge may be filed with such court (Section 5, Rule 71).
equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by
it
The act was committed against a lower court The charge may be filed with the RTC of the place in which the lower court is
sitting;
It may also be filed with the lower court against which the contempt was
allegedly committed. The decision of the lower court is subject to appeal to the
RTC (Section 5, Rule 71).
The act was committed against persons, entities, bodies or unless otherwise provided by law, the charge shall be filed with the RTC of the
agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions place wherein the contempt was committed (Section 12, Rule 71)

PENALTY FOR INDIRECT CONTEMPT

Level of the Court against which the act was committed PENALTY
The act was committed against a RTC or a court of equivalent or he may be punished by a fine NOT EXCEEDING P 30,000.00 or
higher rank imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING 6 months or both (Section 7, Rule
71)
The act was committed against a lower court he may be punished by a fine NOT EXCEEDING P 5,000.00 or
imprisonment NOT EXCEEDING 1 month, or both (Section 7, Rule 71)
If the contempt consists in the violation of a writ of injunction, TRO or he may also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party
status quo order injured by such violation of the property involved or such amount as
may be alleged and proved (Section 7, Rule 71)
The act was committed against a person or entity exercising quasi- the penalty shall depend upon the provisions of the law authorizing a
judicial functions penalty for contempt against such persons or entities [Rule 71,
however, has suppletory effect]

IMPRISONMENT UNTIL THE ORDER IS OBEYED (Coercive Power)

– Section 8, Rule 71 provides for INDEFINITE INCARCERATION in contempt proceedings to compel a party to comply with the order of the
court. It is only the Judge, who orders the confinement of a person for contempt of court, who can issue the ORDER OF RELEASE
(Inoturan v. Limsiaco, Jr.)
Release of Respondent – A person imprisoned for contempt may be discharged provided that the interest of the public WILL NOT be prejudiced by
such release [Section 10, Rule 71].
REMEDY OF A PERSON ADJUDGED IN INDIRECT CONTEMPT – he 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 (Section 11, Rule 71).
CONTEMPT AGAINST QUASI-JUDICIAL ENTITIES
– Rule 71 is applicable
– The court that has jurisdiction over charges for indirect contempt committed against quasi-judicial bodies is the RTC of the place where
the contemptuous act was committed (Section 12, Rule 71).
– Quasi-judicial bodies that have the power to cite persons for indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 can only do so by initiating them in the
proper RTC. Indirect contempt cases are still within the province of the RTC.
– Under Art. 218 of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the Labor Arbiters) may hold an offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and
impose appropriate penalties in accordance with law. The penalty for direct contempt consists of either imprisonment or fine, the degree
or amount depends on whether the contempt is against the Commission or the labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however, requires the labor
arbiter or the Commission to deal with indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71.

OTHER KINDS OF CONTEMPT (Burgos v. Macapagal-Arroyo)

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CIVIL CONTEMPT
Conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or judge for
judge acting judicially (as in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the the benefit of the opposing party therein and is, therefore, an offense
authority and dignity of the court or judge, or doing a duly forbidden against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made
act);

It is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring

the court into disrepute or disrespect
Its purpose is to PUNISH its purpose is to COMPENSATE
Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal, but may be resorted to in civil, as well as in criminal actions, and independently of any
action. They are of two classes, the CRIMINAL or punitive, and the CIVIL or remedial.
In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond
reasonable doubt.
CRITICISM OF COURTS
– As an officer of the court, a lawyer may criticize the court (Fudot v. Cattleya).
– It is the cardinal condition of all such criticisms, that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.
Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty to respect courts and therefore warrants the wielding of the power to
punish for contempt (Garcia v. Manrique).
CONTEMPT OF COURT v. DISCIPLANARY ACTIONS IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW
– A finding of contempt on the part of a lawyer DOES NOT PRECLUDE the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him for his
contravention of the ethics of the legal profession.
– The imposition of a fine as a penalty in a contempt proceeding is NOT CONSIDERED res judicata to a subsequent charge for
unprofessional conduct.
– Contempt of court is governed by the procedures laid down under Rule 71, whereas disciplinary actions in the practice of law are
governed by Rules 138 and 139 thereof (Siy v. NLRC).
CONTEMPT IN RELATION TO EXECUTION OF JUDGMENTS – Contempt is NOT a means of enforcing judgment. EXAMPLE:
a. It is not the refusal of the losing party to vacate which constitutes contempt but the ACT OF RE-ENTRY after his ouster from the property.
b. An officer, who disobeys a writ of certiorari against him, shall be punished for contempt (Section 9, Rule 65).
CONTEMPT POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE; LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS – refers to the power to conduct LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES
embodied in Section 21 of Art. VI of the Philippine Constitution. (implied or inherent but is NOT ABSOLUTE OR UNLIMITED)
– Limitations on the contempt power of the legislature:
a. It must be exercised in aid of legislation;
b. It must be in accordance with the duly published rules of procedure; and
c. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected
– There is no express constitutional provision which vests Congress with the power to cite non-members of the legislature for contempt.
This power has, however, been invoked by Congress as a means of preserving its authority and dignity (Arnault v. Nazareno), in the
same way that courts wield an inherent power to “enforce their authority, preserve their integrity, maintain their dignity, and ensure the
effectiveness of the administration of justice. (Commissioner v. Cloribel)
CONTEMPT POWER OF LOCAL LEGISLATIVE BODIES – local legislative bodies DO NOT possess the contempt power of Congress
– There being no provision in the Local Government Code explicitly granting local legislative bodies, the power to issue compulsory process
and the power to punish for contempt, the Sanggunian Panlungsod [of Dumaguete] is devoid of power to punish [the petitioners Torres and
Umbac] for contempt.