Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN MATTER OF CONTEMPT ORDERS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	AM No. RTJ-09-2179 2012-09-24	PROSEC. JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN VELASCO JR., J.
In the Matter of the Contempt Orders against Lt. Gen. Jose M. Calimlim and Atty. Domingo A. Doctor, Jr.[33] (Calimlim) clarified the procedure prescribed for indirect contempt proceedings. We held in that case: In contempt proceedings, the prescribed procedure must be followed. Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provide the procedure to be followed in case of indirect contempt. First, there must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and consider respondent's answer. Finally, only if found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 172538 2012-04-25	ISABELO ESPERIDA v. FRANCO K. JURADO PERALTA, J.
Sections 3[16] and 4,[17] Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, specifically outlines the procedural requisites before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt. First, there must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. Second, the respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge against him. Third, there must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and consider respondent's answer. Finally, only if found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.[18] The law requires that there be a charge in writing, duly filed in court, and an opportunity given to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel. What is most essential is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity to meet the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses. This is due process, which must be observed at all times.[19]
	GR No. 190529 2011-03-22	PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Evidently, the Rule cited above does not provide that reprimand may be imposed on one found guilty of indirect contempt.However, we have in recent cases imposed a penalty less than what is provided under the Rules if the circumstances merit such.[28]