November 1968 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > November 1968 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-2509 November 29, 1968 - NILDA SURA v. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-2509. November 29, 1968.]
NILDA SURA, in her behalf and in behalf of her minor child VICENTE MARTIN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., Defendant-Appellant.
Bartolome Sim. Palma for Appellee.
Adrian H. Villasis and Plaridel S. Katalbas, for Defendant-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A FINAL AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, NOT DISOBEDIENCE TO BE CONSIDERED INDIRECT CONTEMPT. — The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of defendant for contempt for failure to satisfy a judgment to pay past and future support are illegal because such judgment is a final disposition of the case and is declaratory of the rights or obligations of the parties. Under Section 3(b), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt refers to a special judgment which is defined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, as that which requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, or sale or delivery of real or personal property which must be enforced by proper contempt proceedings.
2. ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF; IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION. — Where the sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor in an action for support was insolvent, the orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant for failure to satisfy the judgment, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHERE DISOBEDIENCE OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION NOT CONTEMPTIBLE. — The writ of execution issued on the judgment with respect to past support required "the sheriff or other proper officer" to whom it was directed (Rule 39, Section 8, Rules of Court) to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor in the manner specified in Rule 39, Section 15 of the Rules of Court. The writ of execution was, therefore, a direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ, which justifies the arrest and imprisonment of defendant for contempt of court.
2. ID.; ID.; EXECUTION OF; IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION. — Where the sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor in an action for support was insolvent, the orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant for failure to satisfy the judgment, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHERE DISOBEDIENCE OF A WRIT OF EXECUTION NOT CONTEMPTIBLE. — The writ of execution issued on the judgment with respect to past support required "the sheriff or other proper officer" to whom it was directed (Rule 39, Section 8, Rules of Court) to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor in the manner specified in Rule 39, Section 15 of the Rules of Court. The writ of execution was, therefore, a direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ, which justifies the arrest and imprisonment of defendant for contempt of court.
D E C I S I O N
CAPISTRANO, J.:
Appeal from the Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental ordering the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant, Vicente Martin, Sr., for contempt, "hasta que cumpla con la decision dictada en esta causa."cralaw virtua1aw library
Appellant’s statement of facts, accepted by the appellee, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In Civil Case No. 5580 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental entitled, `NILDA SURA, In her behalf and in behalf of her minor child, VICENTE MARTIN, JR., plaintiffs, versus VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., defendant’, judgment was rendered on June 20, 1961, amended on July 15, 1961, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`EN MERITOS DE TODO LO EXPUESTO, el Juzgado falla esta causa como sigue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Se sobresee el primer motivo de accion de la demanda;
(b) Se ordena al demandado a que reconozca al demandante Vicente Martin, Jr. como su hijo natural; y
(c) Se condena al demandado a pagar al demandante Vicente Martin, Jr., alimentos atrasados a razon de P100.00 mensuales a contar desde el dia 10 de Diciembre de 1959, fecha de la presentacion de la demanda, y a pasar al mismo demandante una pension mensual de Pl00.00 hasta que el misno llegue a la mayor edad.
(d) Se condena al demandado a pagar los honorarios del abogado de las demandantes en la cantidad de P1,000.00
Las costas del presente juicio seran pagadas por el demandado.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Julio 15, 1961
(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"From the above judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter Court, in C.A. G.R. No. 30388-R, affirmed said decision on January 30, 1964.
"On May 9, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`Upon petition of counsel for the plaintiff, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to issue writ of execution, same be forwarded to the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental.
SO ORDERED.
Bacolod City, Philippines, May 9, 1964
(Sgd) JOSE R. QUERUBIN
Judge’
"Pursuant to this aforecited order, a writ of execution was issued on May 9, 1964 by the Clerk of Court, and the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental served the same upon the defendant in Tanjay, Negros Oriental but returned the writ unsatisfied. The second paragraph of the Sheriff’s return of service, dated September 21, 1964, stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`The judgment debtor is jobless, and is residing in the dwelling house and in the company of his widowed mother, at Tanjay, this province. Debtor has no leviable property; he is even supported by his mother. Hereto attached is the certificate of insolvency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Tanjay Negros Oriental, where debtor legally resides.’
"On October 6, 1964, counsel for the plaintiff prayed that defendant, for failure to satisfy the writ of execution, be adjudged guilty of contempt of court. On November 28, 1964, the Court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`AUTO
A peticion del abogado Sr. Villasis que representa al demandado, y con la conformidad del abogado Sr. Tupaz, por el presente se le concede al demandado un plazo de 30 dias a contar desde esta fecha, para cumplir con la decision de este Juzgado antes de que se le declare en desacato.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Noviembre 28, 1964
(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"The defendant having failed to satisfy said order, the Court on January 9, 1965 issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`AUTO
Habiendo dejado de cumplir con la orden de este Juzgado de fecha 28 de Noviembre de 1964, por el presente se ordena el arresto del demandado Vicente Silvestre, Sr.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Enero 9, 1965
EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"Notice of appeal from the last aforecited order was filed on January 26, 1965 by attorney for the defendant who at the same time prayed for the fixing of a bond for the temporary release of the defendant. On February 1, 1965, the Court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘AUTO
Oidas y consideradas las explicaciones dadas por el demandado en la silla testifical el dia 28 de Noviembre de 1964, y no encontrando bien fundadas las razones alegadas por el, por el presente se ordena el confinamiento de dicho demandado en la carcel provincial hasta que cumpla cun la decision dictada en esta causa. Se fija en P7,000.00 la fianza que el demandado debe prestar si desea apelar contra la orden dictada en esta misma fecha.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, February 1, 1965
EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant, Vicente Martin, Sr., for contempt of court for failure to satisfy the judgment were illegal, in view of the following considerandos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) The judgment ordering the defendant to pay past and future support at P100 per month was a final disposition of the case and was declaratory of the obligation of the defendant. The writ of execution issued on the judgment with respect to past support in the amount of about P6,000 required "the sheriff or other proper officer" to whom it was directed (Rule 39, Section 8, Rules of Court) to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor in the manner specified in Rule 39, Section 15, of the Rules of Court. The writ of execution was, therefore, a direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ.
(2) The sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. Hence the Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.
(3) The disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt in Section 3(b) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, does not refer to a judgment which is a final disposition of the case and which is declaratory of the rights of the parties, but to a special judgment, which is defined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court as a judgment "which requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, or the sale or delivery of real or personal property."cralaw virtua1aw library
According to Moran:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Generally, any order or judgment of a court finally disposing of an action should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, except special judgments which should be executed by contempt proceedings in accordance with Rule 39, Sec. 9," citing Caluag, Et. Al. v. Pecson, Et Al., 82 Phil., 8 (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 Ed., Vol. 3, p. 320.)
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, are hereby reversed. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Appellant’s statement of facts, accepted by the appellee, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"In Civil Case No. 5580 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental entitled, `NILDA SURA, In her behalf and in behalf of her minor child, VICENTE MARTIN, JR., plaintiffs, versus VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., defendant’, judgment was rendered on June 20, 1961, amended on July 15, 1961, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`EN MERITOS DE TODO LO EXPUESTO, el Juzgado falla esta causa como sigue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(a) Se sobresee el primer motivo de accion de la demanda;
(b) Se ordena al demandado a que reconozca al demandante Vicente Martin, Jr. como su hijo natural; y
(c) Se condena al demandado a pagar al demandante Vicente Martin, Jr., alimentos atrasados a razon de P100.00 mensuales a contar desde el dia 10 de Diciembre de 1959, fecha de la presentacion de la demanda, y a pasar al mismo demandante una pension mensual de Pl00.00 hasta que el misno llegue a la mayor edad.
(d) Se condena al demandado a pagar los honorarios del abogado de las demandantes en la cantidad de P1,000.00
Las costas del presente juicio seran pagadas por el demandado.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Julio 15, 1961
(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"From the above judgment, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the latter Court, in C.A. G.R. No. 30388-R, affirmed said decision on January 30, 1964.
"On May 9, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`Upon petition of counsel for the plaintiff, the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to issue writ of execution, same be forwarded to the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental.
SO ORDERED.
Bacolod City, Philippines, May 9, 1964
(Sgd) JOSE R. QUERUBIN
Judge’
"Pursuant to this aforecited order, a writ of execution was issued on May 9, 1964 by the Clerk of Court, and the Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental served the same upon the defendant in Tanjay, Negros Oriental but returned the writ unsatisfied. The second paragraph of the Sheriff’s return of service, dated September 21, 1964, stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`The judgment debtor is jobless, and is residing in the dwelling house and in the company of his widowed mother, at Tanjay, this province. Debtor has no leviable property; he is even supported by his mother. Hereto attached is the certificate of insolvency issued by the Municipal Treasurer of Tanjay Negros Oriental, where debtor legally resides.’
"On October 6, 1964, counsel for the plaintiff prayed that defendant, for failure to satisfy the writ of execution, be adjudged guilty of contempt of court. On November 28, 1964, the Court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`AUTO
A peticion del abogado Sr. Villasis que representa al demandado, y con la conformidad del abogado Sr. Tupaz, por el presente se le concede al demandado un plazo de 30 dias a contar desde esta fecha, para cumplir con la decision de este Juzgado antes de que se le declare en desacato.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Noviembre 28, 1964
(Fdo) EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"The defendant having failed to satisfy said order, the Court on January 9, 1965 issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
`AUTO
Habiendo dejado de cumplir con la orden de este Juzgado de fecha 28 de Noviembre de 1964, por el presente se ordena el arresto del demandado Vicente Silvestre, Sr.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, Enero 9, 1965
EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
"Notice of appeal from the last aforecited order was filed on January 26, 1965 by attorney for the defendant who at the same time prayed for the fixing of a bond for the temporary release of the defendant. On February 1, 1965, the Court issued the following order:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘AUTO
Oidas y consideradas las explicaciones dadas por el demandado en la silla testifical el dia 28 de Noviembre de 1964, y no encontrando bien fundadas las razones alegadas por el, por el presente se ordena el confinamiento de dicho demandado en la carcel provincial hasta que cumpla cun la decision dictada en esta causa. Se fija en P7,000.00 la fianza que el demandado debe prestar si desea apelar contra la orden dictada en esta misma fecha.
Asi se ordena.
Ciudad de Bacolod, February 1, 1965
EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ
Juez’
The orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant, Vicente Martin, Sr., for contempt of court for failure to satisfy the judgment were illegal, in view of the following considerandos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) The judgment ordering the defendant to pay past and future support at P100 per month was a final disposition of the case and was declaratory of the obligation of the defendant. The writ of execution issued on the judgment with respect to past support in the amount of about P6,000 required "the sheriff or other proper officer" to whom it was directed (Rule 39, Section 8, Rules of Court) to satisfy the amount out of all property, real and personal, of the judgment debtor in the manner specified in Rule 39, Section 15, of the Rules of Court. The writ of execution was, therefore, a direct order to the sheriff or other proper officer to whom it was directed, and not an order to the judgment debtor. In view thereof, the judgment debtor could not, in the very nature of things, have committed disobedience to the writ.
(2) The sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. Hence the Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.
(3) The disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt in Section 3(b) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, does not refer to a judgment which is a final disposition of the case and which is declaratory of the rights of the parties, but to a special judgment, which is defined in Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court as a judgment "which requires the performance of any other act than the payment of money, or the sale or delivery of real or personal property."cralaw virtua1aw library
According to Moran:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Generally, any order or judgment of a court finally disposing of an action should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, except special judgments which should be executed by contempt proceedings in accordance with Rule 39, Sec. 9," citing Caluag, Et. Al. v. Pecson, Et Al., 82 Phil., 8 (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1963 Ed., Vol. 3, p. 320.)
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed Orders of January 9 and February 1, 1965, are hereby reversed. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
