Pacifico R. Torrefiel vs. PMI Colleges, et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 2441. July 30, 1987.] PACIFICO R. TORREFIEL , petitioner , vs . PMI COLLEGES & TOMAS CLOMA , respondents . O R D E R Submitted for resolution is the petitioner's "Manifestation and Motion", dated June 26, 1987, praying for a graver and heavier penalty on the respondents' willful and continued defiance of the Commission's lawful order. DSEaHT This incident is an offshoot of the respondents' continued refusal to implement the Decision of the Commission dated January 23, 1985, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents ordering the latter to: 1. allow or permit the petitioner to inspect and examine the corporate books and records of respondent PMI; 2. issue stock certificates to petitioner corresponding to his stock dividends and to pay him any declared cash dividends; and 3. notify petitioner of any stockholders' meeting". The respondents appealed the said Decision to the Commission En Banc. On May 27, 1986, the Commission En Banc rendered a Decision dismissing respondents' appeal, a copy of which was delivered to, and received by, respondents' counsel on May 28, 1986. No motion for reconsideration or appeal of the said Decision of the Commission En Banc was filed by the respondents within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof; hence, the same has become final and executory. On July 22, 1986, petitioner, through counsel, filed a Motion for Extension of the Decision of the Commission dated January 23, 1985. On August 12, 1986, a Writ of Execution was issued by the Commission commanding the respondents to implement its Decision dated January 23, 1985. However, despite receipt by the respondents of said Writ on August 18, 1986, they unjustifiably failed and deliberately refused, and still fail and refuse, to obey and comply with the subject Writ of Execution. Consequently, on November 27, 1986, the petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to cite respondents in contempt. During the hearing of said motion, only petitioner and his counsel appeared. Thereafter, the Commission issued an Order, dated December 12, 1986, directing the respondents to file their comment and/or opposition to petitioner's motion to cite them for contempt. To date, however, respondents failed to file any comment or opposition thereto. On March 10, 1987, the Commission issued an Order declaring the respondents in contempt, the dispositive portion of which states: "Accordingly, the respondents are hereby declared in CONTEMPT of this Commission for which a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P500.00) is hereby imposed upon them with an additional fine of FIFTY PESOS (P50.00) a day for every day of failure to comply with the Decision of this Commission dated January 23, 1985, but not to exceed ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00), from receipt of this Order. Should the respondents still persist in disobeying the DECISION, this Commission, upon motion, will not hesitate to impose the other penalty provided by the law." Notwithstanding the Order, dated March 10, 1987, declaring them in contempt, the respondents failed and refused, and still fail and refuse, to comply and obey the Decision and orders of this Commission; hence, the instant motion praying for a graver and heavier penalty. At the hearing of said motion, respondents again failed to appear despite due notice. WHEREFORE, the petitioner's "Manifestation and Motion" is hereby Noted and Granted. Accordingly, aside from an accumulated fine of P1,000.00, a graver and heavier penalty of imprisonment, not exceeding one month, is hereby imposed upon respondent Tomas Cloma. Therefore, as prayed for and pursuant to Section 6 (b) of Presidential Decree 902-A, as amended, which empowers the Commission to punish for contempt, both direct and indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of, and penalties prescribed by the Rules of Court, as well as Section 3 of said decree which empowers the Commission to enlist the aid and support of and to deputize any and all enforcement agencies of the government, civil or military, this Commission hereby orders the Superintendent of Western Police District, Manila, or his duly authorized representative to arrest respondent Tomas Cloma and imprison him until he complies with the Decision of this Commission, dated January 23, 1985, but not exceeding one month. EICSTa Let copies of the Manifestation and Motion, dated June 26, 1987, of petitioner, the Writ of Execution dated August 12, 1986 and the Order dated March 10, 1987, all issued by this Commission, be furnished the Superintendent of the Western Police District, Manila, for his immediate reference. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ROLANDO C. MALABONGA Hearing Officer