INDIRECT CONTEMPT

INDIRECT CONTEMPT
-------------------------------

Under Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules, if a party  or an officer or managing agent of a party refuses
to  obey  an  order  to  produce  any  document  or  other  things  for inspection, copying, or
photographing or to permit it to be done, the court may make such orders as are just. The
enumeration of options given to the court under  Section 3, Rule 29 of the Rules is not exclusive,
as shown by the phrase “among others.” Thus, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan, We said: To ensure
that availment of the modes of discovery is otherwise untrammeled and efficacious, the law imposes serious sanctions on the party who refuses to make discovery,  such as dismissing the action or proceeding or part thereof, or rendering judgment by default against the disobedient party; contempt of court, or arrest of the party or agent of the party; payment of the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining a court order to compel discovery; taking the matters inquired into as established in accordance with the claim of the party seeking discovery;


refusal to allow the disobedient party support or  oppose designated claims or  defenses;  striking
out  pleadings  or  parts  thereof;  staying  further proceedings.  If  adjudged  guilty  of
indirect  contempt,  the  respondent  who committed it against a Regional Trial Court or a
court of equivalent or higher rank may be punished with a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos, or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both.
In this case, the threatened sanction of possibly ordering petitioners to solidarily pay a fine of
P10,000.00 for every day of delay in complying with  the September 10, 2002 Order is well within the allowable range of penalty.


As far as the proceedings for indirect contempt  is concerned, the case of Baculi v. Judge Belen
is instructive:x x x Under the Rules of Court,  there are two ways of initiating indirect contempt
proceedings:

(1) motu proprio by the court; or
(2) by a verified petition.



The recourse provided for in the above-mentioned  provision is clear enough: the person adjudged
in indirect contempt must file an appeal under Rule 41 (Appeal from the Regional Trial Courts)
and post a bond for its suspension pendente lite. Obviously, these were not done in this case.
Instead, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules and did not post the
required bond, effectively making the September 3, 2007 Resolution final and executory.


GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and PABLO B. ROMAN, JR.,
Petitioners, -versus
MANUEL SANCHEZ, Respondent
G.R. No. 182738

Feb. 24, 2014