This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-01-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Indirect contempt refers to contumacious acts perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.[15] It is governed by Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which 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 by counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: | |||||
|
2007-06-21 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. Indirect or constructive contempt, in turn, is one perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice.[11] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO. SR., J. |
||||
| The ruling of the Court in Patricio v. Suplico[25] is instructive as to when defamatory statements can be considered contemptuous. In the said case, the movant attached to his motion for inhibition a petition for the elimination of the respondent Judge from the judiciary, which contained statements of the judge's perceived shortcomings. The Court annulled and set aside the contempt order issued by the respondent judge. It held that "the petition was attached to the motion not to defame or debase, or shame or humiliate the judge, or defy or denigrate the authority of the court, but simply to demonstrate the basis for the movant's apprehension that the judge might become or have become so affected by the petition for his ouster as to lose that "cold neutrality" demanded of his office in dealing with the authors and their clients."[26] Although the alleged defamatory statements were not actually contained in the motion itself but in the petition attached to the motion, the principle stated in that case can also be applied analogously to the present case. | |||||
|
2003-10-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In Patricio v. Suplico,[5] this Court made a clear-cut distinction between direct and indirect contempt - | |||||