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.

ESPANOL V. FORMOSO (REMEDIAL)

Issue: Whether petitioner erred in ruling that respondents are guilty of direct contempt of court for using falsified documents when Sharcons filed its complaint for quieting of title.

DIRECT CONTEMPT is one done in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice. It is a contumacious act done facie curiae and may be punished summarily without hearing. In other words, one may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt at the very moment or at the very instance of the commission of the act of contumely.

INDIRECT OR CONSTRUCTIVE CONTEMPT in turn,is one perpetrated outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or a judge, any abuse or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

We agree with the petitioner that the use of falsified and forged documents is a contumacious act. However, it constituted indirect contempt, not direct contempt. In Santos v. CFI of Cebu, we ruled that the imputed use of a falsified document, more so where the falsity of the document is not apparent on its face, merely constituted indirect contempt, and as such is subject to such defenses as the accused may raise in the proper proceedings. Thus, following Section 3, Rule 71, a contemner may be punished only after a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity has been given to the accused to be heard by himself and counsel.

Moreover, settled is the rule that a contempt proceeding is not a civil action, but a separate proceeding of a criminal nature in which the court exercises limited jurisdiction. Thus, the modes of procedure and the rules of evidence in contempt proceedings are assimilated as far as practicable to those adopted to criminal prosecutions. Perforce, petitioner judge erred in declaring summarily that respondents are guilty of direct contempt and ordering their incarceration. She should have conducted a hearing with notice to respondents.