SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236530. March 14, 2018.]
GOMECO METAL CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. RAZUL Z. REQUESTO, PRESIDENT OF PAMANA ISLAND RESORT HOTEL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 March 2018which reads as follows: AaCTcI
"G.R. No. 236530 (Gomeco Metal Corporation v. Razul Z. Requesto, President of Pamana Island Resort Hotel)
The Court resolves to DISMISS the instant Petition for Indirect Contempt filed by petitioner Gomeco Metal Corporation (petitioner) against respondent Razul Z. Requesto, as President of Pamana Island Resort Hotel (respondent), for failure of petitioner to clearly demonstrate how respondent committed misbehavior or improper conduct constituting indirect contempt under Section 3, 1 Rule 71 of the Rules of Court (Rules). Aside from petitioner's bare averment as to respondent's false claims of bankruptcy, as well as its indebtedness of P500 million loan obligation, no other material assertion was adduced to sustain the charge of indirect contempt. Jurisprudence teaches that for an act to be considered contemptuous, it must be clearly contrary or prohibited by the order of the court. "A person cannot, for disobedience, be punished for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required." 2 Similarly, the power to punish for contempt of court is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, and only occasionally should a court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail. 3 Further, petitioner failed to attach supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein as set forth under Section 4, 4 Rule 71 of the same Rules, warranting the dismissal of the petition altogether.
Moreover, petitioner's prayer seeking consolidation of this case with G.R. No. 202531 is DENIED, as said case had already been adjudicated 5 on the merits on August 17, 2016.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. — After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
xxx xxx xxx
2. See HGL Development Corporation v. Penuela, G.R. No. 181353, June 6, 2016, 792 SCRA 214, 260; citations omitted.
3.Id., citing Villavicencio v. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778, 798 (1919).
4. Under the second paragraph of Section 4 of the same Rule, a charge of indirect contempt must be filed in the form of a verified petition instituted as a special civil action if it is not initiated directly by the court. Section 4 of Rule 71 reads:
xxx xxx xxx
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charges and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. (Underlining ours)
5.Id. at 28-53. Penned by Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez with Associate Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Diosdado M. Peralta, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Francis H. Jardeleza concurring.