IN RE SOTTO (1949) – DIRECT CONTEMPT

- Case of in re Pazaro (with decision but not yet final)

- He published a statement that Court is corrupt and he will reorganize
- He said he was the author of the Press Freedom Law and SC had wrong interpretation
- Doctrines: CONTEMPT
o Power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts
o Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness of he court in a pending case
made in good faith may be tolerated.
o Good faith may only mitigate but not exempt him from liability for contempt
o Attorney may also be disbarred
o Sotto intended to interfere and influence the final disposition of the case through
INTIMIDATION and FALSE ACCUSATIONS
- Concurring:
o He was charged with abducting, blackmailing, disbarment, and false libel
o Freedom of press includes the right to criticize the public and private life of all public
officers, and court’s decisions; BUT it cannot to sway their judgments in pending cases

HARDEN V. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS (1948) – INDIRECT CONTEMPT

- Mr. Harden imprisoned until he follows order of the court to deposit certificates of stock (worth
1 milliion) that he has in Hong Kong, in the Philippines
- He files a habeas corpus because he has been detained in NBP
- Doctrines: CONTEMPT
o Habeas corpus does not lie to correct errors of fact and law
o Decision is not subject to collateral attack by HC; provided it was within jurisdiction
o While courts cannot act on property foreign land (without the foreign court’s assistance),
they can direct a party with respect to such property AND hold them in contempt if they
resist court order
o Penalty is neither CRUEL, UNJUST, EXCESSIVE  Only that when they involve torture or a
lingering death
o The terms of his sentence is left for him to avoid; He can purge himself from contempt
- Dissenting:
o Provision is characterized by extreme arbitrariness
o Petitioner has been claiming that he has no means of complying with the orders
o Since you only need preponderance of evidence, it does not carry absolute certainty.
o Already in jail for more than 6 months  cruel because a person is compelled to endure
an indefinite number of years
o Direct contempt (a more serious case) only gives 6 months, so indirect contempt should
not be more

PEOPLE V. GODOY (1995) – INDIRECT CONTEMPT

- Filed by judge because of an article in Palawan Times in connection with a case on automatic
review by the Supreme Court (because carried double death penalty)
- Article said why doesn’t he charge the Godoy if Godoy is threatening him; quotes Judge’s
interview in Magandang Gabi Bayan “tagilid na ang mundo”
- Doctrines: NOT CONTEMPT
o Article is merely a report of rumors and not presented as facts
o Snide remarks or sarcastic innuendoes do not necessarily assume the level of contumely
which is actionable
o A judge ought to be patient and tolerate a momentary outbreak of disappointment
CRIMINAL CIVIL
Nature Against the dignity and authority of Failure to do something ordered
the court or judge acting judicially; or done by a court IN A CIVIL
an act obstructing the ACTION
administration of justice
Beneficiary Public, the society, the Opposing party in a civil case;
government; the State is the real instituted by the opposing party,
prosecutor his successors, or someone who
has pecuniary interest in the right
to be protected
Purpose Punitive/ Punishment Remedial/ Compensatory
Intent Necessary element Immaterial  Good faith is not a
defense
Effect To preserve the authority of the To provide a remedy for an injured
court and to punish disobedience party and to coerce compliance
Application Looks at past acts Looks at future acts; the
contemnor must be in the position
to purge himself
Rules They are not criminal proceedings A proceeding of contempt is a
Governing (sui generis) but should be proceeding in the civil case; no
conducted in accordance with need to docket a separate action
principles/ rules applicable to but it is a NEW and INDEPENDENT
criminal cases proceeding

Summary proceeding rules are Must be initiated by issuance and

applied if direct contempt service of new process
Burden of Beyond reasonable doubt Preponderance of evidence
proof

o Post litigation publications can be the subject of contempt proceedings – English doctrine
(any comment degrading to the court was punishable regardless of when made) vs.
American doctrine (when the case is finished, judges are subject to criticisms)
o Two types of criminal contempt:
FIRST TYPE (DECISION) SECOD TYPE (COURT ITSELF)
PURPOSE Tends to influence the court in a Tends to bring disfavor or destroy
pending suit (criminal contempt) public confidence
PENDING No contempt if there is no action Contempt exists with or without
CASE pending an action pending, as what is
sought to be protected is the court
itself and its dignity
 o Philippine doctrine:
o General Rule: Can criticize decisions
 Exceptions:
(1) Defamatory/ False, Libelous utterances  imposes a clear and
present danger that the administration of justice would be
impeded; impairs confidence in judicial functions
(2) When it degrades/ ridicules the court; brings in disrespect
o What makes a valid criticism?
o Invites public attention or calls for public comment
o Never attacks the individual, or his work.
o Never imputes dishonorable motives UNLESS with clearest proof
o Never takes advantage of the occasion to gratify private malice
o Jurisdiction for indirect contempt:
o For IC against inferior court or the Supreme Court  May be tried by the trial court
o Where the contempt relates to the appeal  Appellate Court (presupposes a
complete transfer of jurisdiction to the appellate court); can punish for violations
of orders entered into by its predecessor
o Where contempt does not relate to the subject matter of the appeal  Remains
with the trial court
o If it relates to the main case  judge should DQ himself
o Other appropriate remedies:
o Does not bar prosecution for libel
o Not double jeopardy libel is personal, contempt is impersonal
o Can disbar
CONTEMPT DISBARMENT
Power Power to punish for contempt Power to disbar and discipline
its members
Purpose To vindicate the authority of To deal with the fitness of the
the court court’s officer
Effect Vindictive and preservative Discipline
Show Cause Why he should not be Why he should not be
punished for contempt suspended from the practice
of law
Rules Rule 71 Rules 138 and 139

OCLARIT V. HON. PADERANGA (2001) – DIRECT CONTEMPT

- Oclarit is a lawyer; during the pre-trial he introduced a compromise agreement signed before the
Barangay Chariman
- Judge gave a verbal order for contempt; sent to jail; written order was received the next day
- Doctrines:
o NOT GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT – CA is not required to be executed in the court;
other acts of lawyer (banged on table and shouted) were not recorded in the transcript
o JUDGE SHOULD STATE THE FACTS – Must state in the order the facts consisting of
contemptuous behavior
 o CANNOT BE IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY – Contemner must be afforded a reasonable
remedy to purge himself of the contempt
 Such person cannot appeal ONLY certiorari and prohibition
 Effect: It sill stay the order pending resolution of the petition PROVIDED that he
(1) files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and (2)
conditioned that he will be perform the judgment when decided against him
o Courts must be slow to punish for contempt
o Must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in facie curiae
o Must be exercised on the PRESERVATIVE not VINDICATIVE
o CORRECTIVE not RETALIATORY idea of punishment

LORENZO SHIPPING, ET AL. (shipping lines) V. DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE

PHILIPPINES (2011) – INDIRECT CONTEMPT
- Doctrines: NOT CONTEMPT
o Criticism done in good faith; does not spill over the walls of decency and propriety
o Contempt is two kinds:
IN-COURT (DIRECT) OUT-OF-COURT (INDIRECT)
What Committed in the presence of or Not committed in the immediate
constitutes so near the judge as to obstruct presence of the court but tends to
him in the administration of obstruct justice or interfere court
justice actions

Committed within view

Procedure Summary (because it is facie
curiae)  dispenses with
formality, delay, no service of
complaint and answer, no
hearings, taking in of evidence,
briefs, submission of findings, etc.
Normal adversary procedures 
If judge has no personal
knowledge of misbehavior (only
because of confession of
contemnor OR testimony under
oath by other persons), must
charge the contemnor to appear
and let him show cause why he
should not be punished

o Two classes:
CRIMINAL CIVIL
What Conduct that is directed against Failure to do something ordered
constitutes the authority and dignity of a to be done by a court or judge in a
court or a judge acting judicially civil case for the benefit of the
opposing party
Rule 71:

(1) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of official duties  Presence of

CONTUMACIOUS INTENT (should not be condemned for contempt where he contends for what
he believes to be right and in good faith)
(2) Disobedience to a lawful writ or order
(3) Unlawful interferences to proceedings/ procedures not constituting direct contempt
(4) Improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice
(5) Assuming to be a lawyer without authority
(6) Failure to obey subpoena
(7) Rescue or attempted rescue of persons in authorized custody

RPN V. RPN EMPLOYEES (2012) – INDIRECT CONTEMPT

- RPN employees were removed from their union; CBA states that when removed from union,
company should terminate; they were terminated; they complained of illegal dismissal
- LA ordered to reinstate them; RPN did but only in payroll
- Employees filed a petition for indirect contempt; LA cited them for IC, NLRC affirmed, CA
dismissed because lacked supporting documents
- Doctrines:
o Case can be dismissed by not attaching pertinent documents
o Manner of reinstating is management prerogative
o Employees provoked RPN guards and officials
o Indirect contempt refers to contumacious of stubbornly disobedient acts perpetrated
OUTSIDE of the Court.
- Mooted by RPN’s compliance

BOOK:
DIRECT
(1) Misbehavior in the presence of or so near
the judge as to obstruct/ interrupt
proceedings
(2) Disrespect toward the court
(3) Offensive personalities towards each other
(4) Refusal to be sworn as a witness or answer
as a witness
(5) Refusal to subscribe a deposition when
lawfully required to do so
(6) Lawful and deliberate forum shopping
(7) Unfounded accusations or allegations of
words tending to embarrass the court
INDIRECT
(1) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the
performance of official duties  Presence
of CONTUMACIOUS INTENT (should not be
condemned for contempt where he
contends for what he believes to be right
and in good faith)
(2) Disobedience to a lawful writ or order
(3) Unlawful interferences to proceedings/
procedures not constituting direct
contempt
(4) Improper conduct tending to impede,
obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice
(5) Assuming to be a lawyer without authority
(6) Failure to obey subpoena
(7) Rescue or attempted rescue of persons in
authorized custody
Summary: (1) Charged in writing to be filed (verified
(1) Charged in writing petition OR by order of a formal charge
(2) Hearing initiated by the court motu proprio)
(2) Opportunity for person to appear and
explain
(3) To be heard by himself or through a
counsel

Petition must be served; not required to file an

answer; but must attend hearing; if does not
attend without justifiable reason, the court may
order his arrest (does not declare in default); may
be released if he files bond to appear before the
court