Professional Documents
Culture Documents
May 28, 1947, the receiver appointed in the main case prayed that the certificates of stock of the conjugal
partnership, among them 368,553 shares of the Balatoc Mining Co., alleged to be in the possession of defendant
Harden, be ordered turned over the receiver (walang pangalan receiver eh), for the registration of said stocks as
pursuant to R.A. 62. The Court then on June 7, 1947 allowed/authorized Harden to register such stock certificates
that he possesses not later than June 30, 1947, and then notify the court after its completion
July 28, 1947 Mrs. Harden complained that her husband had not yet complied with the order above ^, and prayed
that there be an order to call upon Mr. Harden to show why he should not be declared in contempt. On Aug. 1,
1947 he then filed a perfunctory compliance (instant compliance ata other term).
And in an order dated August 2, 1947 he was required to make a detailed report of the stock certificates which have
been duly registered in pursuant to RA 62. In his compliance which is dated Aug 7, 1947, he stated that he was given
an extension until Dec. 31, 1947 within which to register the Balatoc Mining Co. shares under Republic Act No. 62.
In the motion of Jan 7, 1948 the receiver informed the court that even after such extension, Harden has not
registered the stock certificates as of Jan 7, 1948. The receiver requested for an extension for Harden to up to March
31, 1948 to comply to the order of June 7, 1947.
In this motion dated March 15, 1948 Mrs. Harden prayed, under the circumstances provided that Mr. Harden be
ordered to deliver certificates covering the 368,553 Balatoc Mining Co. shares to either the clerk of the court or to
the receiver for safekeeping, after registering such stock certs.
After wards on March 24, 1948. Filed a motion that the registration of stock under Ra 62 had been extended until
June 30, 1948, and prayed that he be allowed to register the stock on the date that the law provided.
HE WAS THEN IMPRISONED bec of contempt, until he returns the amounts indicated.
Issue:
W/n the imprisonment bestowed upon Fred is an excessive punishment
H:
No. Because within the two year period that had lapse, Harden has in fact capable of freeing himself by simply
complying with the orders of the court. Wherein it is an imprisonment that he can end anytime
Petition is denied. Hardens assumption that this was an excessive punishment because he reasons that it is difficult
for him to comply with the orders of the court, that which his penalty would then lead to life imprisonment.