MONTENEGRO V. MONTENEGRO (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether the court erred in holding the petitioner guilty of indirect contempt for willfully disobeying the orders of the trial court requiring his to appear for purposes of examination as a judgment obligor.

No.

The Rules of Court penalizes two types of contempt, namely DIRECT CONTEMPT AND INDIRECT CONTEMPT. Direct contempt is committed in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, and includes disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities towards others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.

Indirect contempt may either be initiated

1. motu proprio by the court by issuing an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; or
2. by the filing of a verified petition, complying with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings.

In the present case, the trial court initiated the proceedings for indirect contempt by issuing two orders directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt.

Contempt, whether direct or indirect, may be civil or criminal depending on the nature and effect of the contemptuous act. Criminal contempt is "conduct directed against the authority and dignity of the court or a judge acting judicially, it is an act obstructing the administration of justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect."

On the other hand, civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party therein and is therefore, an offense against the party in whose behalf the violated order was made. If the purpose is to punish, then it is criminal in nature; but if to compensate, then it is civil.

It is of no moment that petitioner was eventually examined as judgment obligor, nine months after the original setting. his subsequent appearance at the hearing did not wipe out his contemptuous conduct.

In the present case, the nature of the contemptuous acts committed is civil in nature. the act however which the trial court ordered the petitioner to do has already been performed, albeit belatedly and not without delay for an unreasonable length of time. As such, the penalty of imprisonment may no longer be imposed despite the fact that its non-implementation was due to petitioner's absence in the Philippines.

Contempt may be initiated by the Court motu proprio for disregarding its previous orders, independently of the motions filed by the parties. No verified petition is required if the proceedings for indirect contempt are initiated in this manner and the absence of a verified petition does not affect the procedure adopted.