THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 200736. March 6, 2013.]
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., petitioner, vs. DOROTHY TANEDO-JAO, DESIREE ANG AND SAM BENEDICT LIM, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 200736 (Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. Dorothy Tanedo-Jao, Desiree Ang and Sam Benedict Lim). — Before the Court is a petition for contempt filed by Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PGCI) in relation to a petition for review docketed as G.R. No. 195458, entitled Dorothy Tanedo-Jao, Desiree Ang, Sam Benedict Lim and Fibercity Incorporated v. Philippine Global Communications, Inc. On April 13, 2011, the Court issued its Resolution, 1 denying the petition for review for failure of Dorothy Tanedo-Jao, Desiree Ang, and Sam Benedict Lim (Tanedo-Jao, et al.) to show that reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Court denied with finality their motion for reconsideration.
On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the manifestation and motion filed by Tanedo-Jao, et al., dated August 18, 2011, treating it as a second motion for reconsideration. The Court likewise denied, for lack of merit, the (1) motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and/or to refer the case to the Court En Banc; and (2) reiterated motion for leave to file the former. It directed that no further pleadings or motions be entertained, and that entry of judgment be made in due course. 2
On August 22, 2011, the April 13, 2011 Resolution of the Court became final and executory. 3
In its Resolution, 4 dated February 27, 2012, the Court expunged from the records the motion to resolve/decide the case on the merits, dated January 26, 2012; 5 and the supplement to said motion, dated January 30, 2012 6 filed by Tanedo-Jao, et al. ACaEcH
The latter then filed their motion to reinstate pleadings expunged, dated May 14, 2012. 7
Petitioner PGCI is now before this Court with a petition for contempt, arguing that the filing of the aforementioned pleadings by the respondents, after their motion for reconsideration was denied with finality and entry of judgment was made, constitutes indirect contempt of court as they are acts of defiance, abuse of process, and manifestation of absolute disrespect for the judicial process and the administration of justice.
In their comment, the respondents insist that the filing of their pleadings was dictated by good faith to uphold truth and justice, as prompted by the demands of the higher interest of justice and authorized by Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Court; 8 and that they never intended to act in wilful defiance or disobedience of the Court's orders. Furthermore, they filed their motion to resolve/decide the case on the merits before they received the notice of the entry of judgment. They reiterate their arguments in their pleadings that the documents involved in G.R. No. 195458 were absolutely simulated and anchored on the false testimony of the witnesses of PCGI. They also opine that it should be the petitioner who must be held in contempt.
Contempt of court has been defined as a wilful disregard or disobedience of a public authority. Indirect contempt, which consists of wilful disobedience of the lawful process or order of the court, is defined by, and punished under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. There is no question that, in contempt, the intent goes to the gravamen of the offense, thus, the good faith, or lack of it, of the alleged contemnor is an important consideration. To constitute contempt, the act must be done wilfully and for an illegitimate or improper purpose. 9
In the present case, it does not appear that the respondents were motivated by bad faith in filing their various pleadings. Instead, they appear to be driven, in good faith, by their staunch stand and belief that G.R. No. 195458 was incorrectly dismissed on the basis of false and fabricated evidence. This is neither an illegitimate nor an improper purpose. Their zeal in arguing their case, though misplaced, cannot qualify as wilful disobedience of the Court. A person should not be condemned for contempt where he contends for what he believes to be right and, in good faith, institutes proceedings for the purpose, however erroneous may be his conclusion as to his rights. 10 AcEIHC
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
2.Id. at 123-124.
3.Id. at 125-126.
4.Id. at 164-165.
5.Id. at 130-141.
6.Id. at 142-148.
7.Id. at 163-166.
8.SEC. 3. Second motion for reconsideration. — The Court shall not entertain a second motion for reconsideration, and any exception to this rule can only be granted in the higher interest of justice by the Court en banc upon a vote of at least two-thirds of its actual membership. There in reconsideration "in the higher interest of justice" when the assailed decision is not only legally erroneous, but is likewise patently unjust and potentially capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury or damage to the parties. A second motion for reconsideration can only be entertained before the ruling sought to be reconsidered becomes final by operation of law or by the Court's declaration.
In Division, a vote of three Members shall be required to elevate a second motion for reconsideration to the Court En Banc.
9.Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 331, 342, 348-350.
10.Id. at 349-350.