This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature.[5] This form of contempt is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect. Intent is a necessary element in criminal contempt, and no one can be punished for a criminal contempt unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.[6] | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded. Indeed, contempt is not a criminal offense.[37] However, a charge for contempt of court partakes of the nature of a criminal action.[38] Rules that govern criminal prosecutions strictly apply to a prosecution for contempt.[39] In fact, Section 11 of Rule 71[40] of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal in indirect contempt proceedings may be taken as in criminal cases. This Court has held that an alleged contemner should be accorded the same rights as that of an accused.[41] Thus, the dismissal of the indirect contempt charge against respondent amounts to an acquittal, which effectively bars a second prosecution.[42] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be followed.[29] To be sure, since an indirect contempt charge partakes the nature of a criminal charge, conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings.[30] A respondent in a contempt charge must be served with a copy of the motion/petition. Unlike in civil actions, the Court does not issue summons on the respondent. While the respondent is not required to file a formal answer similar to that in ordinary civil actions, the court must set the contempt charge for hearing on a fixed date and time on which the respondent must make his appearance to answer the charge. On the date and time of the hearing, the court shall proceed to investigate the charges and consider such answer or testimony as the respondent may make or offer. The mode of procedure and rules of evidence therein are assimilated to criminal prosecutions. If he fails to appear on that date after due notice without justifiable reason, the court may order his arrest, just like the accused in a criminal case who fails to appear when so required. The court does not declare the respondent in a contempt charge in default.[31] | |||||
|
2010-10-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Rules are unequivocal. Indirect contempt proceedings may be initiated only in two ways: (1) motu proprio by the court; or (2) through a verified petition and upon compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. The procedural requirements are mandatory considering that contempt proceedings against a person are treated as criminal in nature.[32] Conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings.[33] | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It bears stressing that the proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. The modes of procedure and rules of evidence adopted in contempt proceedings are similar in nature to those used in criminal prosecutions. [63] While it may be argued that the Court of Appeals should have ordered respondents to comment, the issue has been rendered moot in light of our ruling on the merits. To order respondents to comment and have the Court of Appeals conduct a hearing on the contempt charge when the main case has already been disposed of in favor of PMSI would be circuitous. Where the issues have become moot, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering the resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[64] | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, there must be a hearing conducted on the contempt charge. In this case, no hearing was ever conducted. After receiving petitioners' Compliance, Judge Cruz-Avisado immediately issued the 11 December 1999 Order. Petitioners were not afforded full and real opportunity to be heard. Since a contempt charge partakes of the nature of a criminal prosecution and follows the proceedings similar to criminal prosecution,[19] judges must extend to the alleged contemner the same rights accorded to an accused.[20] Judge Cruz-Avisado should have given petitioners their day in court and considered the testimony and evidence petitioners might offer. | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The records do not bear any indication that petitioner was afforded an opportunity to rebut the charges against him when he was first charged by respondent with contempt. While petitioner was able to oppose respondent's motion, inasmuch as an indirect contempt charge partakes of the nature of a criminal charge, conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings.[17] There is no question that petitioner's disobedience to the RTC's lawful order constitutes indirect contempt of court. This, however, was not a license for the RTC to disregard petitioner's rights. It should have held a hearing in order to provide petitioner with the opportunity to state his defense and explain his side. A hearing affords the contemner the opportunity to adduce before the court documentary or testimonial evidence in his behalf. The hearing will also allow the court a more thorough evaluation of the defense of the contemner, including the chance to observe the accused present his side in open court and subject his defense to interrogation from the complainants or the court itself.[18] | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Section 3, Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for the following requisites prior to conviction of indirect contempt: (a) a charge in writing to be filed; (b) an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court; and (c) to be heard by himself or counsel.[22] With respect to constructive contempts or those which are committed without the actual presence of the court, it is essential that a hearing be allowed and the contemner permitted, if he so desires, to interpose a defense to the charges before punishment is imposed.[23] The proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in nature. The modes of procedure and rules of evidence adopted in contempt proceedings are similar in nature to those used in criminal prosecutions.[24] | |||||