. 636 Cursino vs.

Bautista 176 SCRA 65 August 7, 1989

Facts: The plaintiff is the lawful owner and lessor of the premises located at 4143 17
de Marzo St. Baclaran, Paranque, lease by defendant at a monthly rental of 100
pesos, payable within the first five days of each month; that defendant defaulted in
the payment of his monthly rental for the months of October, November, December,
1997. The defendant contends that he has not defaulted in the payment of rents
and that it was the plaintiff who refused to accept the same. As a matter of fact,
defendant claims that he sent postal money order as rental payment.

Issue: WON section 2, Rule 70 of Rules of Court is applicable to the instance case.

Held: Yes, the private respondent formally demanded from the petitioner the
following: 1) to pay the back rentals and 2) to vacate the premises. Respondent was
able to pay the back rentals but refused to vacate the premises. Undoubtedly,
respondents belated payments of his back rentals do not automatically restore the
contract of lease without petitioners consent. The court has consistently ruled that
It is the landlords demand for tenant to vacate the premises, when the tenant has
failed topay the rents on time and refusal to vacate.

637 Medina vs. Court of Appels 225 SCRA 207 August 24, 1993

Facts: Dominga Hipolito, petitioners Mother leased from Rosa Laqui an apartment
unit at 631-HT. Cruz St. Tondo, Manila. The agreement, which was orally entered
into, called for the payment of rent on a monthly basis. Dominga and her family
continuously occupied the premises and paid Rosa the mothly rentals thereon. Even
after Domingas death. Rosa through her agent Manchie P. Abanilla notified the
petitioner that effective June 1990, the monthly rental of P 729.35 will be increased
to one thousand five Hundred pesos a month. Issue: WON the need for the leased
premises by the lessor is a valid ground for ejectment. Held: Yes, BP Blg. 25 allows
ejectment on the ground of need by the owner/lessor of the leased premises for his
own use or that of a member of his immediate family. The inclusion of this ground
was obviously intended to correct the inequity and hardship imposed by PD 20 on
small landowners/lessor, whose property right, protected as they are by the
fundamental law itself, we upheld even during the affectivity of PD 20 to adopt,
therefore, the construction given by respondent court is to render section 5 of BP
25 illusory in cases where the lease agreement is verbal and for an indefinite
period, because in this case, the owner/lessor, notwithstanding his pressing and
urgent need for the premises could never successfully eject the tenant as the period
of leased would never expire during the affectivity of BP 25.

638 Vda. De Salazar vs. Court of Appeals 250 SCRA 305 November
23, 1995

Facts: Both private respondents filed separate complaints with the Court of Agrarian
Relations of Malolos, Bulacan, for ejectment on the ground of personal cultivation
and conversion of land for useful non-agricultural purposes against petitioners
deceased husband, Benjamin Salazar. After protected, proceedings in the Agrarian
Court rendered its joint decision in favor of private respondent. An appeal was
interposed in the name of petitioners husband on the ground that private
respondents herein failed to satisfy the requirements pertaining to personal
cultivation of the landholdings into non-agricultural uses. Issue: WON an ejectment
case survives the death of a party. Held: Yes, In such a case and considering that
the supervening death of appellant did not extinguish her civil personality, the
appellate court was well within its jurisdiction to proceed as it did with the case.
There is no showing that the appellate Courts proceedings in the case were tainted
with irregularities. While it is true that a decision in an action for ejectment is
enforceable not only against the defendant himself but also against member of his
family, his relatives, and his privies who derived their right of possession from the
defendant and his successor-in-interest.

. 639 Caniza vs. Court of appeals 268 SCRA 640, February 24, 1997

Facts: Caniza was the owner of a house and a lot at No. 61 tobias st. Quezon City.
Her guardian Amparo Evangelista commenced a suits in the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MetroTC) of Q.C. (Branch 35) to eject the spouses Pedro and Leonora Estrada from
said premises. The complaint was later amended to identify the incompetent Caniza
as plaintiff, suing through her legal guardian, Amparo Evangelista. The amended
complaint pertinently alleged that plaintiff Caniza was absolute owner of the
property in question, covered by TCT No. 24147; that out of kind ness, she had
allowed the Estrada spouses, their children, grandchildren and son-in-law to
temporarily reside her house.

Issue: Whether or not the proper remedy for Caniza is not ejectment but accion
publiciana.

Held: This Court Adjudged that a person who occupies the land of another at the
latters tolerance or permission without any contract between them is necessarily
bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing which
summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him. The situation is not
much different from that of a tenant whose lease expires but who continues in
occupancy by tolerance of the owner in which case is deemed to be an unlawful
deprivation or withholding of possession as of the date of the demand to vacate.

. 640 Heirs of Vda. De Roxas v. CA 422 SCRA 101, February

5, 2004
Facts: This petition stem from a case filed by Trinidad de Leoan Vda. Roxas to set
aside the decree of registration over two unregistered parcels of land in tagaytay
City granted Maguesun Management and Development Corporation before the RTC
on the ground of actual fraud. The trial Court dismissed the petition to set aside the
decree of registration. The CA affirmed the findings of the trial court.

Issue: Whether or not the courts decision and resolution constitutes indirect
contempt under sec. 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

Held: Yes. Meycauayans obstinate refusal to abide by the courts decision has no
basis in view of the courts clear pronouncement to the contrary. The fact that this
court specifically ordered the cancellation of Mecauayans title to the disputed
parcels of land in the resolution dated 29 July 1998, should have laid to rest the
issue of defiance constitute indirect contempt under sec. 3(d), Rule 71 of the Rules
of Court.

641 Quinio v. Court of Appeals 335 SCRA 522, July 13,

2000
Facts: Petitioner indentifying herself as one of the John Does in the complaint of
TOYOTA, presented a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause action but in
its order, the trial court deferred resolution of subject motion until trial on the merits
pursuant to sec. 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of court. The Court of Appeals decided in
favor of petitioner Quinio by annulling the challenged writ of replevin.

Issue: Whether or not the private respondent are guilty of indirect contempt.

Held: Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice of dignity of the court
such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into
disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during
litigation. It is defined as a disobedience to the court by setting up an opposition to
its authority, Justice and dignity.

.642 Encinas v. National Book store, Inc. 464 SCRA 572,

July 28, 200
Facts: Resolution dated 6 April 2005, the court required Atty. Ricardo T. Calinag,
counsel for Roberto p. Madrigal Acopiado and his attorney-in-fact Datu Mohaldin
R.B. Suliaman, to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court for
his participation in the submission of faker judicial decision to this court. This
concern his compliance there with entitled Motion to show cause. Counsel explains
that he filed the motion for Intervention with leave of court and Petition-
InIntervention (was appended a copy of the fake decision) on behalf of his clients to
seek the truth in order that justice will prevail.

Issue: Whether or not the counsel is charged with direct contempt.

Held: Yes. Counsels explanation is insufficient and unsatisfactory the court cites
counsel in direct contempt of court. Direct contempt, contempt in facie curiae, is
misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge so as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward
the court, and can be punished summarily without hearing. It is conduct directed
against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or judge, or in the doing of
forbidden act. Counsels actuation may even constitute a violation of the lawyers
oath.

643 Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance v. Valdez, 542 SCRA 455, Jan. 28,
2008

Facts: Tokio Marine Insurance Company Inc. (Tokio Marine), petitioner in these case,
is a domestic corporation engaged in the insurance business, Jorge Valdez,
respondent in these case, was a former unit manager of Tokio Marine pursuant to a
unit management contract entered into between them on August 16, 1977.
Respondent filed with RTC 35, Manila a complaint for damages against petitioner. He
allege therein that petitioners violated the terms of the unit management contract
by refusing to pay him, among others his Commission and business.

Issue: Whether or not the court of appeals erred in denying their motion to dismiss
respondents complaint for non-payment of docket fees.

Held: No. The court allows the plaintiff respondent to litigate as pauper there being
sufficient showing that he is an indigent. He does not own any real property in the
city of Manila or elsewhere. As held in Magaspi V. Ramolete, the court docket fees
must be paid before courts can act on a petition or complaint. The exception to the
rule on payment of docket fees is provided in section 21, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of
court, the Indigent party.

644 People v. Godoy and Gacott, Jr. v. Reynoso 243 SCRA

64
Facts: The complaint base as based on an article written by respondent Reynose, Jr.
in his column, On the Beat and published in the July 20, 1994 issue of valid
newspaper which is of general circulation in Puerto Princesa City. The complaint
overs that the article tends to impede, obstruct, be lite, downgrade and degrade the
administration of justice; that the article contains averments which are
disrespectful, discourteous, insulting, offensive and derogatory.

Issue: Whether or not Port-litigation Publication can be the subject of contempt

proceedings.

Held: Yes. Guaranties of free speech and free press, as they appear in the
constitution, are frequently couched so as to impute responsibility for any abuse of
privilege, and it is sometimes recognized that with respect to whether an allegedly
scandalous publication or utterance is to be treated as a contempt, a live must be
drawn between those speeches as writings which are protected by the privilege of
free speech and a tree press and those which constitute an abuse of it..

645 Rodriguez v. Bonifacio 344 SCRA 519, November 6,

2000
Facts: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in coordination with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI)
conducted simultaneous raids at the Royal Flame Club, Space World and Narcissus
Club which are all located in Ermita, Manila as a result of which 20 female Chinese
nationals were caught in the act of entertaining customers and guest. Chinese
National mating one of the 20 apprehended, filed a petition for habeas corpus at the
Pasig RTC 151.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent Judge is charge with contempt.

Held: Yes. The foregoing act not only seriously under mines and adversely reflects
on the honesty and integrity of respondent judge as an officer of the court; it also
betrays a character than which speaks ill of his person of his person, he must
therefore, be the first to aside by the law and weave an example for the others to
follow.

646 Tabujara III v. Gonzales- Asdala 576 SCRA 404, January 20, 2009

Facts: Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III, by a complaint affidavit dated June 8, 2006 which
was sworn to on June 9, 2006 and received by the office of the court administrator
(COA) on June 13, 2006, charged Judge Fatima Gonzales- Asdala, respondent,
presiding Judge of the RTC of Quezon City 87, with gross ignorance of the law and
procedure, gross misconduct constituting violation of the code of Judicial Conduct,
graft and Corruption.

Issue: Whether or not the complainant is charged with indirect contempt or direct
contempt.

Held: Yes. Complainant was guilty of indirect contempt. Its is a contempt committed
outside of the sitting of the court and may include his behavior of an officer of the
court in the performance of his official duties or in his offered transaction. Any
abuse or any unlawful interference with process or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly
to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of Justice. .

647 Lipata v. Tutaan 124 SCRA 877, September 29, 1983

Facts: This is a contempt incident against Luzviminda v. Lipata for not obeying an
alias unit of execution. Judge Eduardo C. Tutaan his decision ordered Luxviminda
and her step mother to deliver to the alleged vendees, the spouses Jocelyn O.
Agcaoli and Jose Agcaoli, the two storey house, located at 1884 Obisis, street,
Pandacan, manila. That decision is final cud executory.

Issue: Whether or not the contempt order is void.

Held: Yes. We hold that the contempt order is void. It is not sanctioned by the Rules
of Court. It is not contempt of court for a judgement debtor to disobey the unit of
execution. It was the sheriffs duty to enforce the unit. He did not perform his duty,
as ordained in Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.