[ G. R. No. 18381, January 12, 1922 ]
NADJIB TANNUS HASHIM, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE PEDRO CONCEPCION, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AND AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
OSTRAND, J.:
On July 5, 1921, the plaintiff's attorneys filed charges of contempt of court against the defendant in the Court of First Instance for failure to comply with the order of November 28, 1920. The matter was assigned for hearing on October 6, 1921, the defendant being1 duly notified, and on November 28,1921, the respondent herein, the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, judge of the Court of First Instance, issued an order in which he, after reciting that the conduct of the defendant constituted a clear case of contempt, ordered that said defendant be confined in prison until he should comply with the order of November 28, 1920. The defendant appears, so far successfully, to have evaded arrest and is now absconding and hiding himself from the process of justice.
On December 21, 1921, his attorneys filed the petition, now under consideration in this court, alleging that the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance had exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing the order of November 28, 1920, and asking that said respondent be ordered to certify to this court a transcript of the record of the cause pending in the Court of First Instance, and that the same be reviewed here; and, further, that a restraining order be issued against the said respondent ordering him to desist and refrain from further action in the premises until further orders from this court.
We are unable to discover any merit in the petitioner's contention. That an action by a wife against her husband for maintenance is within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is too obvious for argument, and the marriage having been proven, that court has also power to issue an order for maintenance pendente lite. (Yangco vs. Rohde, 1 Phil., 404.) We also agree with the judge of the lower court that the petitioner's conduct in that court constituted a clear case of contempt and that the order of arrest was fully warranted. If petitioner desires a reduction in the maintenance allowance he should purge himself of contempt and make a full and fair disclosure of his financial circumstances to the lower court. In the event of an adverse ruling he might have his remedy by an appeal to this court.
The petition is denied with the costs against the petitioner. So ordered.
Araullo, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., did not take part.