Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON D. MONTENEGRO v. “MONTENEGRO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183711 2011-07-05	EDITA T. BURGOS v. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO BRION, J.
In Montenegro v. Montenegro, [18] we explained the types and nature of contempt, as follows: Contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. It is defined as "disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity."7The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts, because it is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the courts; and, consequently, to the due administration of justice.
	GR No. 180564 2010-06-22	JESUS P. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
Here, petitioner Disini's refusal to testify as ordered by the Sandiganbayan is certain to result in prosecution for criminal contempt. It constitutes criminal contempt since guilt would draw a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both. Said the Court in Montenegro v. Montenegro:[13]
	GR No. 157384 2009-06-05	ERLINDA I. BILDNER v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO VELASCO JR., J.
Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal, depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act.[23] Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by the court for the benefit of the opposing party. Criminal contempt, on the other hand, is conduct 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.[24] On the basis of the foregoing principles, it can be safely concluded that under Sec. 3(d) of Rule 71 on contempt, "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice" constitutes criminal contempt. This is what petitioners obviously would have respondents cited for.
	GR Nos. 175769-70 2009-01-19	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indirect contempt may either be initiated (1) motu proprio by the court by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt or (2) by the filing of a verified petition, complying with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings.[62]
	GR No. 167988 2007-02-06	MA. CONCEPCION L. REGALADO v. ANTONIO S. GO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In our jurisdiction, the Rules of Court penalizes two types of contempt, namely direct contempt and indirect contempt. [27]
	GR NO. 165734 2006-06-16	ATTY. RAMON B. CENIZA v. DANIEL WISTEHUFF CALLEJO, SR., J.
The writ of execution as in ordinary civil action shall issue for the enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine, unless the court otherwise provides. Section 8 of the same Rule further states: SEC. 8 Imprisonment until order obeyed.-When the contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the respondent to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs it. In the recent case of Montenegro v. Montenegro,[34] the Court distinguished criminal contempt from civil contempt, as follows: Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act. Criminal contempt is "conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially; it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court to disrepute or disrespect." On the other hand, civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made. If the purpose is to punish, then it is criminal in nature; but if to compensate, then it is civil.[35] Thus, contempt proceedings has a dual function: (1) vindication of public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct; (2) coercion to compel the contemnor to do what the law requires him to uphold the power of the Court, and also to secure the rights of the parties to a suit awarded by the Court.[36]
	AM NO. RTJ-05-1957 2005-09-26	PRESCILLA L. NEDIA v. JUDGE CELSO D. LAVIÑA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indirect contempt may either be initiated (1) motu proprio by the court by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, or (2) by the filing of a verified petition, complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings.[9]