Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DOLORES DE MESA ABAD v. CORONA IBAY SOMERA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-03-1762 2008-12-17	SERGIO v. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority and dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially, or such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrepute or disrespect.[29] Here, respondent judge cited complainants in direct contempt of court for filing a complaint (Civil Case No. 7066) based on a deed of quitclaim that had already been declared null and void, instead of having the said case, wherein he was one of the defendants, raffled to the court which could properly act on the case. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold due administration of justice, still, judges must be slow to punish for direct contempt. This drastic power must be used judiciously and sparingly. A judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his duties.[30]
	AC. NO. 6483 2007-08-31	NICOLAS O. TAN v. ATTY. AMADEO E. BALON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It has been held that 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.[10] It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's order but such conduct as tends 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]
	AM NO. RTJ-06-2002 2006-11-24	ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDGE MARIANO M. SINGZON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Respondent judge should be reminded that an indirect contempt proceeding is different from and may just be incidental to a main case. It is a separate proceeding which deals with a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court,[13] or any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.[14]
	AM NO. RTJ-06-1972 2006-06-21	JOHN PANALIGAN v. JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Likewise, it is settled that an act to be considered contemptuous must be clearly contrary or prohibited by the order of the court. "A person cannot, for disobedience, be punished for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required.[13] The acts of complainant in the case at bar is not contrary or clearly prohibited by the order of the court.
	GR NO. 169476 2006-06-16	DOUGLAS LU YM v. ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
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.[16] However, such power should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally should the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail. Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised. Such power being drastic and extra-ordinary in its nature should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.[17]