OLIVEROS V. SISON (REMEDIAL)

Contempt of court is defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court; it signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.

In particular, non-compliance with any of the undertakings in the Certification against Forum Shopping shall constitute indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. The rationale for the requirement of a certification against forum shopping is to apprise the Court of the pendency of another action or claim involving the same issues in another court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency, and thereby precisely avoid the forum shopping situation.

The rule is well settled that a court should be informed of the pendency of a similar proceeding a party has filed. The responsibility cannot be taken lightly because of the harsh penalties the law prescribes for non-compliance.

The act of complainants in not informing the Court of the filing of the case before the CA is no small thing that can be brushed aside simply because this Court has already meter Judge Sison with an appropriate sanction. Respondent's error does not negate complainant' culpability. Those who seek relief from the courts must not be allowed to ignore basic legal rules and abuse court processes in their efforts to vindicate their rights.

Rules of procedure are required to be followed, except only when for the most persuasive of reasons, they may be relaxed to relieve the litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. We find no reason in this case to relax the Rules in complainant's favor.