Lawyerly

AM No. MTJ-14-1839

2015-07-22

ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN

CARPIO, ACTING CJ.

Reviewing the records, we find that complainant exhibited respect and obedience to the trial court's orders. There is clearly no disobedience, much less defiance, on the part of complainant against respondent judge's authority. In other words, there is no contempt of court to speak of, which has been defined as "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation."[31]

GR No. 156208

2014-06-30

NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION

BRION, J.

By jurisprudence, the phrase "improper conduct" refers to acts constituting gross disrespect to the court that detracts from the dignity and integrity of a court of justice.[146] Improper conduct may be in the form of unfair criticisms;[147] the continuing resistance to the Court's final judgment;[148] the employment of delaying tactics to obstruct the administration of justice[149] or otherwise unduly delaying the case;[150] and the violation of the sub judice rule.[151]

AM No. CA-13-51-J

2013-07-02

RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF MERLITA B. FABIANA

BERSAMIN, J.

The consolidation of two or more actions is authorized where the cases arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction and that consolidation will not give one party an undue advantage or that consolidation will not prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[18] As to parties, their substantial identity will suffice. Substantial identity of parties exists when there is a community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second, even if the latter has not been impleaded in the first case.[19] As to issues, what is required is mere identity of issues where the parties, although not identical, present conflicting claims.[20] The justification for consolidation is to prevent a judge from deciding identical issues presented in the case assigned to him in a manner that will prejudice another judge from deciding a similar case before him.

GR No. 176841

2010-06-29

ANTHONY ORDUÑA v. EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA

VELASCO JR., J.

Where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificates of title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual possessor.[44] And where, as in the instant case, Gabriel Jr. and the subsequent vendors were not in possession of the property, the prospective vendees are obliged to investigate the rights of the one in possession. Evidently, Bernard, Marcos and Benjamin, and Eduardo did not investigate the rights over the subject lot of the petitioners who, during the period material to this case, were in actual possession thereof. Bernard, et al. are, thus, not purchasers in good faith and, as such, cannot be accorded the protection extended by the law to such purchasers.[45] Moreover, not being purchasers in good faith, their having registered the sale, will not, as against the petitioners, carry the day for any of them under Art. 1544 of the Civil Code prescribing rules on preference in case of double sales of immovable property. Occeña v. Esponilla[46] laid down the following rules in the application of Art. 1544: (1) knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's rights except when the second buyer first register in good faith the second sale; and (2) knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since such knowledge taints his registration with bad faith.

GR No. 141508

2010-05-05

ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON

The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[30] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[31] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[32]

GR No. 150107

2008-01-28

TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED v. JORGE VALDEZ

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Contempt of court is "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court: such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during litigation."[13] Succinctly, it is the despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court.[14] Rule 71 provides for two forms of contumacious acts direct and indirect.

GR NO. 150949

2007-06-21

JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL v. ATTY. BENJAMIN S. FORMOSO AND SPS. BENITO SEE AND MARLY SEE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

The early case of In re Jones[3] defined contempt of court as "some act or conduct which tends to interfere with the business of the court, by a refusal to obey some lawful order of the court, or some act of disrespect to the dignity of the court which in some way tends to interfere with or hamper the orderly proceedings of the court and thus lessens the general efficiency of the same." It has also been described as "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during litigation."[4] Simply put, it is despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court.[5]

GR NO. 153936

2007-03-02

ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT

GARCIA, J.

The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[21] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. [23]

GR NO. 168557

2007-02-16

FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.[41] As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:[42]

GR NO. 170720

2006-11-30

ATTY. ERNESTO P. TABAO v. JUDGE EUSTAQUIO GACOTT

CALLEJO. SR., J.

Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties-litigants or their witnesses during litigation.[19] In particular, direct contempt is conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act.[20] Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including 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, may be summarily adjudged in contempt of such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court. Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in facie curiae[21] Judges are enjoined to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindictiveness.[22]

GR NO. 173290

2006-11-20

ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA v. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE OF RTC-QUEZON CITY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In Heirs of Trinidad De Leon v. Court of Appeals,[27] we held that respondent corporation's insistent filing of an action for reconveyance, quieting of title and damages involving the same parcels of land which this Court already decided with finality as constituting indirect contempt and fined it in the amount of P10,000.00.

GR NO. 138703

2006-06-30

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

AZCUNA, J.

Finally, respondents' allegation that PMO is engaged in forum shopping is untenable. Forum shopping is the act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum by appeal or a special civil action of certiorari.[68] As correctly pointed out by PMO, the present petition is merely an appeal from the adverse decision rendered in the same action where it was impleaded as co-defendant with DBP. That DBP opted to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA rather than a direct appeal to this Court does not bar PMO from seeking relief from the judgment by taking the latter course of action.

GR NO. 158971

2005-08-25

MARIANO Y. SIY v. NLRC

CORONA, J.

Contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but also conduct tending to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due administration of justice.[11] Under the Rules of Court, contempt is classified into either direct or indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same.[12] Indirect contempt is one not committed in the presence of a court.[13] It is an act done at a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice.[14]

GR NO. 146006

2005-04-22

JOSE C. LEE v. RTC OF QUEZON CITY

CORONA, J.

This Court has thus repeatedly declared that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and 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 (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1).[24]

	AM No. MTJ-14-1839 2015-07-22	ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELO v. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN CARPIO, ACTING CJ.
Reviewing the records, we find that complainant exhibited respect and obedience to the trial court's orders. There is clearly no disobedience, much less defiance, on the part of complainant against respondent judge's authority. In other words, there is no contempt of court to speak of, which has been defined as "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation."[31]
	GR No. 156208 2014-06-30	NPC DRIVERS v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION BRION, J.
By jurisprudence, the phrase "improper conduct" refers to acts constituting gross disrespect to the court that detracts from the dignity and integrity of a court of justice.[146] Improper conduct may be in the form of unfair criticisms;[147] the continuing resistance to the Court's final judgment;[148] the employment of delaying tactics to obstruct the administration of justice[149] or otherwise unduly delaying the case;[150] and the violation of the sub judice rule.[151]
	AM No. CA-13-51-J 2013-07-02	RE: LETTER COMPLAINT OF MERLITA B. FABIANA BERSAMIN, J.
The consolidation of two or more actions is authorized where the cases arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction and that consolidation will not give one party an undue advantage or that consolidation will not prejudice the substantial rights of any of the parties.[18] As to parties, their substantial identity will suffice. Substantial identity of parties exists when there is a community of interest or privity of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second, even if the latter has not been impleaded in the first case.[19] As to issues, what is required is mere identity of issues where the parties, although not identical, present conflicting claims.[20] The justification for consolidation is to prevent a judge from deciding identical issues presented in the case assigned to him in a manner that will prejudice another judge from deciding a similar case before him.
	GR No. 176841 2010-06-29	ANTHONY ORDUÑA v. EDUARDO J. FUENTEBELLA VELASCO JR., J.
Where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificates of title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual possessor.[44] And where, as in the instant case, Gabriel Jr. and the subsequent vendors were not in possession of the property, the prospective vendees are obliged to investigate the rights of the one in possession. Evidently, Bernard, Marcos and Benjamin, and Eduardo did not investigate the rights over the subject lot of the petitioners who, during the period material to this case, were in actual possession thereof. Bernard, et al. are, thus, not purchasers in good faith and, as such, cannot be accorded the protection extended by the law to such purchasers.[45] Moreover, not being purchasers in good faith, their having registered the sale, will not, as against the petitioners, carry the day for any of them under Art. 1544 of the Civil Code prescribing rules on preference in case of double sales of immovable property. Occeña v. Esponilla[46] laid down the following rules in the application of Art. 1544: (1) knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer's rights except when the second buyer first register in good faith the second sale; and (2) knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since such knowledge taints his registration with bad faith.
	GR No. 141508 2010-05-05	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. MANUEL LACSON
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[30] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[31] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[32]
	GR No. 150107 2008-01-28	TOKIO MARINE MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY INCORPORATED v. JORGE VALDEZ SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Contempt of court is "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court: such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during litigation."[13] Succinctly, it is the despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court.[14] Rule 71 provides for two forms of contumacious acts direct and indirect.
	GR NO. 150949 2007-06-21	JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL v. ATTY. BENJAMIN S. FORMOSO AND SPS. BENITO SEE AND MARLY SEE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The early case of In re Jones[3] defined contempt of court as "some act or conduct which tends to interfere with the business of the court, by a refusal to obey some lawful order of the court, or some act of disrespect to the dignity of the court which in some way tends to interfere with or hamper the orderly proceedings of the court and thus lessens the general efficiency of the same." It has also been described as "a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during litigation."[4] Simply put, it is despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court.[5]
	GR NO. 153936 2007-03-02	ROSARIO M. REYES v. ALSONS DEVELOPMENT GARCIA, J.
The essence of forum shopping is the filing by a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum of another suit other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari;[21] the act of filing of multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action, either simultaneously or successively for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment.[22] Forum shopping exists where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. [23]
	GR NO. 168557 2007-02-16	FELS ENERGY v. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
Res judicata pervades every organized system of jurisprudence and is founded upon two grounds embodied in various maxims of common law, namely: (1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation republicae ut sit litium; and (2) the hardship on the individual of being vexed twice for the same cause nemo debet bis vexari et eadem causa. A conflicting doctrine would subject the public peace and quiet to the will and dereliction of individuals and prefer the regalement of the litigious disposition on the part of suitors to the preservation of the public tranquility and happiness.[41] As we ruled in Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals:[42]
	GR NO. 170720 2006-11-30	ATTY. ERNESTO P. TABAO v. JUDGE EUSTAQUIO GACOTT CALLEJO. SR., J.
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties-litigants or their witnesses during litigation.[19] In particular, direct contempt is conduct directed against or assailing the authority and dignity of the court or a judge, or in the doing of a forbidden act.[20] Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including 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, may be summarily adjudged in contempt of such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court. Courts must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic power must be used sparingly in cases of clearly contumacious behavior in facie curiae[21] Judges are enjoined to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindictiveness.[22]
	GR NO. 173290 2006-11-20	ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA v. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE OF RTC-QUEZON CITY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Heirs of Trinidad De Leon v. Court of Appeals,[27] we held that respondent corporation's insistent filing of an action for reconveyance, quieting of title and damages involving the same parcels of land which this Court already decided with finality as constituting indirect contempt and fined it in the amount of P10,000.00.
	GR NO. 138703 2006-06-30	DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA AZCUNA, J.
Finally, respondents' allegation that PMO is engaged in forum shopping is untenable. Forum shopping is the act of a party, against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another and possibly favorable opinion in another forum by appeal or a special civil action of certiorari.[68] As correctly pointed out by PMO, the present petition is merely an appeal from the adverse decision rendered in the same action where it was impleaded as co-defendant with DBP. That DBP opted to file a motion for reconsideration with the CA rather than a direct appeal to this Court does not bar PMO from seeking relief from the judgment by taking the latter course of action.
	GR NO. 158971 2005-08-25	MARIANO Y. SIY v. NLRC CORONA, J.
Contempt of court is disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but also conduct tending to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due administration of justice.[11] Under the Rules of Court, contempt is classified into either direct or indirect contempt. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same.[12] Indirect contempt is one not committed in the presence of a court.[13] It is an act done at a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice.[14]
	GR NO. 146006 2005-04-22	JOSE C. LEE v. RTC OF QUEZON CITY CORONA, J.
This Court has thus repeatedly declared that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and 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 (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1).[24]

HEIRS OF TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. CA