Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAROLINA QUINIO v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 150274 2006-08-06	IN MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SIMEON A. DATUMANONG IN LATTER''S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The power to declare a person in contempt of court and in dealing with him accordingly is an inherent power lodged in courts of justice, to be used as a means to protect and preserve the dignity of the court, the solemnity of the proceedings therein, and the administration of justice from callous misbehavior, offensive personalities, and contumacious refusal to comply with court orders.[9] This contempt power, however plenary it may seem, must be exercised judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.[10] It should not be availed of unless necessary in the interest of justice.[11]
	GR No. 156829 2004-06-08	RAMON D. MONTENEGRO v. “MONTENEGRO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
In the present case, the nature of the contemptuous acts committed are civil in nature. Section 7 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides for indefinite incarceration in civil contempt proceedings to compel a party to comply with the order of the court. This may be resorted to where the attendant circumstances are such that the non-compliance with the court order is an utter disregard of the authority of the court which has then no other recourse but to use its coercive power.[16] It has been held that "when a person or party is legally and validly required by a court to appear before it for a certain purpose, when that requirement is disobeyed, the only remedy left for the court is to use force to bring such person or party before it."[17]
	GR No. 137326 2003-08-25	ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Quinio v. Court of Appeals,[19] Toyota Bel Air, Inc. similarly failed to comply repeatedly with a final order of the trial court to return a vehicle to the adverse party. The trial court then directed the corporation's President and General Manager to comply. For their continued defiance, the Court affirmed the citation for contempt and ordered Toyota Bel Air, Inc.'s president, general manager and counsel incarcerated until they return the vehicle.