THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 205504. February 3, 2014.]
CATALINO TANCHANCO, JR., petitioner, vs. MELISSA T. GOZUM, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 3, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 205504 (Catalino Tanchanco, Jr. v. Melissa T. Gozum). — This resolves the petition 1 for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals' decision 2 and resolution 3 finding Catalino Tanchanco, Jr., Ronaldo G Tanchanco, and Carmela Tanchanco-Fales guilty of indirect contempt. 4
Melissa T. Gozum petitioned the Regional Trial Court of Makati City to settle the estate of her deceased uncle, Ricardo Tanchanco. She alleged that the property located at 128 Jupiter Street, Bel-Air Village, Makati City belonged to Ricardo's estate. She prayed that the trial court appoint her as special administratrix. 5
The case 6 was raffled to Branch 139, Makati City.
Catalino, Ricardo's brother, opposed the petition. 7 He alleged that Ricardo sold the Bel-Air property to him and to his two siblings, Ronaldo and Carmela. He prayed that the Bel-Air property be excluded from Ricardo's estate. He also prayed that he be appointed as administrator. 8 HECaTD
Melissa filed the motion 9 to deposit rent. She alleged that the Bel-Air property earns P200,000.00 monthly rent. She prayed that the monthly rent be deposited in court and be awarded after the estate court decides who owns the Bel-Air property. 10
Catalino opposed the motion to deposit rent. He reiterated that he, Ronaldo, and Carmela owned the Bel-Air property. Thus, only they are entitled to the monthly rent. 11
In its order 12 dated October 31, 2007, the estate court granted the motion to deposit rent "to preserve [the rent] for the best interest . . . of [those] legally entitled to it." 13
Catalino moved for reconsideration. In its order 14 dated February 12, 2008, the estate court denied Catalino's motion for reconsideration. 15
On April 14, 2008, Catalino filed a petition 16 for certiorari with the Court of Appeals to set aside the orders granting the motion to deposit rent. He prayed that the Court of Appeals issue a temporary restraining order against the October 31, 2007 and February 12, 2008 orders. 17
On October 14, 2008, Melissa filed a petition 18 for indirect contempt against Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela. She alleged that Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela did not deposit the rent as the estate court ordered. 19
The contempt petition 20 was raffled to Branch 65, Makati City.
In its decision 21 dated August 26, 2009, the contempt court denied the petition for indirect contempt for lack of merit. The court refused to direct Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela to deposit the rent pending the petition for certiorari of the orders granting the motion to deposit rent with the Court of Appeals. 22 TAIEcS
Melissa moved for reconsideration. 23
In its resolution 24 dated January 5, 2010, the contempt court reconsidered its decision dated August 26, 2009. The contempt court ruled that a petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued against the lower court. Since the Court of Appeals issued no temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction upon filing of the petition for certiorari, the order to deposit rent stands. Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela must obey the order to deposit rent. 25
For failing to comply with the order to deposit rent, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela were found guilty of indirect contempt by the contempt court. The contempt court fined Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela P10,000.00 each and sternly warned them that failure to deposit the rent in court "will merit a more severe penalty." 26 The dispositive portion of the resolution dated January 5, 2010 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the questioned decision is hereby reconsidered and the court fords the respondents, RONALD [sic] G TANCHANCO, CARMELITA [sic] TANCHA[N]CO-FALES and CATALINO TANCHANCO, JR., GUILTY of indirect contempt and are ordered to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS each, with a stern warning that continued non-compliance with or disobedience of the directive of the court will merit a more severe penalty. cDHAaT
SO ORDERED. 27
Catalino moved for reconsideration, which the contempt court denied in its joint resolution 28 dated May 6, 2010. 29
Catalino appealed the resolution dated January 5, 2010 and joint resolution dated May 6, 2010 to the Court of Appeals. 30
In its decision 31 dated May 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the resolution dated January 5, 2010 and the joint resolution dated May 6, 2010. The Court of Appeals reiterated that a pending petition for certiorari "does not . . . justify [the] refusal to abide [by the order to deposit rent], more so if . . . no restraining order and/or injunction has been issued to stay its implementation." 32 The dispositive portion of the decision dated May 30, 2012 reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65 dated 5 January 2010, as well as the Joint Resolution dated 6 May 2010 denying the reconsideration thereof, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 33
Catalino moved for reconsideration. 34
In its resolution 35 dated January 21, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. CDHaET
Catalino filed this petition 36 for review on certiorari. He argues that he cannot be enjoined to deposit rent. The estate court's order to deposit rent is not yet final. 37 He also argues that he is not guilty of indirect contempt. His failure to deposit rent does not tend to bring the estate court's authority into disrepute. 38
Melissa commented 39 on Catalino's petition for review on certiorari. She argues that Catalino's filing of a petition 40 for certiorari to set aside the order to deposit rent did not interrupt the estate court's proceedings. 41 The order to deposit rent is an interlocutory order which "demand[s] immediate compliance." 42 For disobeying a lawful order of the court, Catalino is guilty of indirect contempt.
The issue is whether Catalino is guilty of indirect contempt.
This court finds Catalino guilty of indirect contempt. He disobeyed and resisted a lawful court order.
Contempt of court is "disobedience to [a] court [by opposing] its authority, justice, and dignity." 43 It includes "willful disregard or disobedience of . . . court orders" 44 or any "conduct [tending to] bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute." 45
All courts have the "inherent power to punish for contempt." 46 This power is "essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice." 47 ACcaET
Under Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, contempt of court may be direct or indirect. Direct contempt is committed "in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt [its] proceedings . . . ." 48 Direct contempt includes "disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so . . . ." 49
As opposed to direct contempt, indirect contempt "is not committed in the presence of the court." 50 It includes disobeying or resisting lawful court orders. Rule 71, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
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
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; . . . .
Catalino admits that he has not deposited in court the monthly rent the Bel-Air property earned. 51 Catalino admits that he has not followed a lawful court order. This is indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3, paragraph (b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. CSTHca
A petition for certiorari of the order to deposit rent pending with the Court of Appeals is immaterial. Rule 65, Section 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states that a petition for certiorari does not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction is issued against the court hearing the principal case:
Sec. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. — The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the potties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the coarse of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge.
The Court of Appeals did not issue any temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the order to deposit rent. Thus, the order to deposit rent stands. Catalino should have deposited in court the monthly rent as the estate court ordered. AacDHE
As the contempt court said in its resolution 52 dated January 5, 2010, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela could have easily obeyed the order to deposit rent. Should the Court of Appeals affirm the order to deposit rent, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela "merely have to continue depositing the succeeding monthly [rent]." 53 Should the Court of Appeals reverse the order to deposit rent, the amounts deposited "need only be returned to whoever is entitled to it." 54
Also, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela claimed that they deposited in a Bank of the Philippine Islands bank account some of the estate's earnings. 55 As the contempt court said, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela could have easily deposited the monthly rent with the court. 56 Instead, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela chose to disobey the order to deposit rent in opposition to the estate court's authority. Thus, Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela are guilty of indirect contempt.
Catalino argues that he did not deposit the rent in court because the order to deposit "[has] not yet attained finality." 57 The Court of Appeals affirmed the order to deposit rent, 58 and Catalino filed a petition for review on certiorari with this court. Since this court has yet to resolve his petition for review on certiorari, Catalino argues that he cannot be enjoined to deposit rent in court.
Catalino uses "finality" in the sense of a final order appealed to a higher court. This "finality" concept does not apply to interlocutory orders. Interlocutory orders never attain finality 59 and do not "finally dispose of the [main] case." 60 Thus, interlocutory orders cannot be appealed. 61 Interlocutory orders stand unless set aside by a writ of certiorari 62 or enjoined by a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction issued against them. 63 aTEADI
The order to deposit rent is interlocutory. It does not finally dispose of the main case, that is, the petition for settlement of Ricardo Tanchanco's estate. Since the order to deposit rent is interlocutory, it cannot be appealed. Catalino correctly filed a petition for certiorari against the order to deposit rent.
When Catalino filed the petition for certiorari against the order to deposit rent, the Court of Appeals did not issue a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the order. The Court of Appeals also denied Catalino's petition for certiorari and affirmed the order to deposit rent.
Thus, the order to deposit rent stands and should be complied with. This is regardless of the petition for review on certiorari of the dismissal of the petition for certiorari. The petition for review on certiorari merely continues 64 the petition for certiorari which, as discussed, does not interrupt the proceedings in the principal case.
Catalino alleges that the estate court itself refused to implement the order to deposit rent. After the estate court granted Melissa's motion to deposit rent, Melissa filed an ex parte motion to direct Catalino, Ronaldo, and Carmela to deposit the rent over the Bel-Air property. In its order dated February 21, 2011, the estate court refused to resolve the ex parte motion. The estate court found it "premature" to resolve the ex parte motion pending Catalino's petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Since the estate court itself found it "premature" for Catalino to comply with the order to deposit rent, Catalino argues that he cannot be compelled to comply with the order to deposit rent. There is no "contumacious conduct" 65 to speak of. SIaHTD
In its order dated February 21, 2011, the estate court said:
Considering that the Order sought to be implemented by [Melissa] is already the subject of a Petition for Certiorari. (CA-G.R. SP No. 103130) now pending before the Court of Appeals, which was filed by herein oppositor Catalino G. Tanchanco, the Court finds it premature to resolve at this point in time the instant Ex-Parte Motion. Hence, the resolution of the said motion is hereby held in abeyance to await the final resolution of the said certiorari case questioning the Order of this Court dated October 31, 2007. 66
As Melissa argued in her comment on the petition for review on certiorari, the estate court only refused to resolve the ex parte motion. 67 However, the order to deposit rent stands: Catalino disobeyed the order to deposit rent even before the estate court issued the order dated February 21, 2011. Catalino remains guilty of indirect contempt.
The estate court only exhibited judicial courtesy to the Court of Appeals. The estate court, however, is reminded of its duty to enforce its order despite a petition for certiorari. 68
The power to punish for contempt is exercised "on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle." 69 Courts should not exercise this power "unless necessary in the interest of justice." 70 Nevertheless, courts should not hesitate to exercise this power if acts "patently and clearly derogatory to [their authority]" 71 are committed against them.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED, there being no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' May 30, 2012 decision and January 21, 2013 resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 33619 are AFFIRMED. AaSHED
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 9-35.
2. Id. at 37-48. This decision was dated May 30, 2012 and penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
3. Id. at 50. This resolution was dated January 21, 2013.
4. This case, Gozum v. Tanchanco, Jr., was docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 33619.
5. Rollo, p. 38.
6. This case was docketed as SP Proc. No. 6279.
7. Rollo, p. 38.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 58-59.
10. Id. at 38-39.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 73-74.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 97-98.
15. Id. at 75-82.
16. Id. at 99-114. This petition was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 103130.
17. Id. at 40.
18. Id. at 117-121.
19. Id.
20. This contempt petition was docketed as SP Case No. 08-845.
21. Rollo, pp. 175-178.
22. Id. at 40.
23. Id. at 179-182.
24. Id. at 195-197.
25. Id. at 40-41.
26. Id. at 197.
27. Id. at 196-197.
28. Id. at 218-219.
29. Id. at 41.
30. Id.
31. Id. at 37-48.
32. Id. at 45.
33. Id. at 47-48.
34. Id. at 331-341.
35. Id. at 50.
36. Id. at 9-35.
37. Id. at 26.
38. Id. at 30.
39. Id. at 379-394.
40. Id. at 99-114.
41. Id. at 391-392.
42. Id. at 392.
43. Villa v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), G.R. No. 174642, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 742, 749 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; See also Limbona v Judge Lee, 537 Phil. 610, 618 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; Heirs of Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 466 Phil. 697, 711 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division] citing Halili, et al. v. CIR, et al., 220 Phil. 507 (1985).
44. Villa v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), G.R. No. 174642, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 742, 749 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
45. Id.
46. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, March 22, 2011, 646 SCRA 63, 77 [Per J. Brion, En Banc] citing Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v COMELEC, En Banc resolution in G.R. No. 147589 and G.R. No. 147613 (Bayan Muna v. Commission on Elections, et al.), February 18, 2003, 404 SCRA 719; See also Limbona v. Judge Lee, 537 Phil. 610, 618 (2006) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; Heirs of Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, 466 Phil. 697, 712 (2004) [Per J. Carpio, First Division] citing Halili, et al. v. CIR, et al., 220 Phil. 507 (1985).
47. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, March 22, 2011, 646 SCRA 63, 77 [Per J. Brion, En Banc] citing Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Parry v. COMELEC, En Banc resolution in G.R. No. 147589 and G.R. No. 147613 (Bayan Muna v. Commission on Elections, et al.), February 18, 2003, 404 SCRA 719.
48. RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 1.
49. RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 1.
50. Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 190529, March 22, 2011, 646 SCRA 63, 77 [Per J. Brion, En Banc] citing Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC, En Banc resolution in G.R. No. 147589 and G.R. No. 147613 (Bayan Muna v. Commission on Elections, et al.), February l 8, 2003, 404 SCRA 719.
51. Rollo, pp. 24 and 29.
52. Id. at 195-197.
53. Id. at 195.
54. Id.
55. Id. at 196.
56. Id.
57. Id. at 29.
58. Decision dated June 23, 2011, rollo, pp. 272-278, and resolution dated January 9, 2012, rollo, pp. 307-308, in CA-G.R. SP No. 103130 penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.
59. PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 520 Phil. 502, 505 (2000) [Per C.J. Pangasinan, First Division]; Pobre v. Court of Appeals, 501 Phil. 360, 369 (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
60. Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 635, 648 [Per J. Brion, Third Division] citing Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256 (1987).
61. RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 1 (c); Philippine Business Bank v. Chua, G.R. No. 178899, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 635, 648 [Per J. Brion, Third Division] citing Denso (Phils.) Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 232 Phil. 256 (1987).
62. RULES OF COURT, Rule 41, Sec. 1.
63. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 7.
64. Leynes v. Former Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154462, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 25, 40 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro, First Division]; Federal Builders, Inc. v. Daiichi Properties and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 142525, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 104, 111-112 [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; Chua v. Santos, 483 Phil. 392, 400 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
65. Rollo, p. 23.
66. Id. at 231.
67. Id. at 384.
68. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 7.
69. Quinio v. Court of Appeals, 390 Phil. 852, 860 (2000) [Per J. Purisima, Third Division].
70. Id. at 861.
71. Villa v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. 174642, October 30, 2009, 604 SCRA 742, 749 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].