September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[UDK-13958 : September 24, 2008] RAFAEL RONDINA AND ROBIN RONDINA,PETITIONERS VS COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAMELY: ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO AND MYLENE JUNE DINO, ATTY. JORGE L. ESPARAGOZA, ATTY. JOSHUA N. DACUMOS, ATTY. DAX MALONY P. MONTEALEGRE, RESPONDENTS. AND G.R. NO. 172212 [FORMERLY UDK-13640] - RAFAEL RONDINA, PETITIONER VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO AND MYLENE JUNE DINO, :
SECOND DIVISION
[UDK-13958 : September 24, 2008]
RAFAEL RONDINA AND ROBIN RONDINA,PETITIONERS VS COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAMELY: ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO AND MYLENE JUNE DINO, ATTY. JORGE L. ESPARAGOZA, ATTY. JOSHUA N. DACUMOS, ATTY. DAX MALONY P. MONTEALEGRE, RESPONDENTS. AND G.R. NO. 172212 [FORMERLY UDK-13640] - RAFAEL RONDINA, PETITIONER VERSUS COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO AND MYLENE JUNE DINO,
RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 September 2008:
UDK-13958 - RAFAEL RONDINA AND ROBIN RONDINA,petitioners versus COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19Th DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., The Board of Directors namely: ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO and MYLENE JUNE DINO, ATTY. JORGE L. ESPARAGOZA, ATTY. JOSHUA N. DACUMOS, ATTY. DAX MALONY P. MONTEALEGRE, respondents.
and
G.R. No. 172212 [Formerly UDK-13640] - RAFAEL RONDINA, petitioner versus COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO and MYLENE JUNE DINO, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for indirect contempt of court, docketed as UDK-13958,[1] and consolidated with G.R. No. 172212[2] which was filed much earlier on March 8, 2006.[3]
Petitioners Rafael Rondina and Robin Rondina allege that on January 16, 2006, public respondent Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision granting the inhibition of Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Calipay. Allegedly, the Amended Decision disregarded the final judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 134903 [4] which ordered that the case be remanded to VA Calipay for further proceedings. Aggrieved, petitioner Rafael Rondina filed before this Court a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 172212.[5]
Under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a proceeding for indirect contempt may be initiated by the court motu proprio or by a verified petition, to wit:
Justice Florenz D. Regalado (Ret.) explained that this new rule clarifies with a regulatory norm the proper procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. The practice under the old rules, tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a mere motion without paying any docket or lawful fees and without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. As a consequence of the unregulated procedure, motions for contempt remain pending for resolution although the main case has already been decided, These and other undesirable aspects may now be eliminated with the requirement for full compliance with the requirements.[6]
In the instant contempt petition, we find that petitioners attached mere photocopies of (1) a certified true copy of a Resolution[7] of this Court dated January 16, 2002 in G.R. No. 134903 denying the motion for reconsideration, supplemental motion for reconsideration and 2nd supplemental motion for reconsideration, and (2) the Amended Decision[8] of the Court of Appeals, in violation of Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also failed to fully comply with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings before this Court. Petitioners did not submit a verified statement of material dates, specifically, on when they received the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals and when they filed a motion for reconsideration, if they did. And they failed to serve a copy of their petition on one of the respondents, Atty. Dax Malony P. Montealegre.[9]
For the reasons abovementioned, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for indirect contempt, but without prejudice to Rafael Rondina's pending petition docketed as G.R. No. 172212 where memoranda of the parties have already been noted.
WHEREFORE, UDK-13958 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
UDK-13958 - RAFAEL RONDINA AND ROBIN RONDINA,petitioners versus COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19Th DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., The Board of Directors namely: ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO and MYLENE JUNE DINO, ATTY. JORGE L. ESPARAGOZA, ATTY. JOSHUA N. DACUMOS, ATTY. DAX MALONY P. MONTEALEGRE, respondents.
and
G.R. No. 172212 [Formerly UDK-13640] - RAFAEL RONDINA, petitioner versus COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER SPECIAL 19TH DIVISION, UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, INC., ROBERT DINO, CRISTINA DINO, MICHAEL LLOYD DINO, ALLAN DINO and MYLENE JUNE DINO, respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for indirect contempt of court, docketed as UDK-13958,[1] and consolidated with G.R. No. 172212[2] which was filed much earlier on March 8, 2006.[3]
Petitioners Rafael Rondina and Robin Rondina allege that on January 16, 2006, public respondent Court of Appeals issued an Amended Decision granting the inhibition of Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Calipay. Allegedly, the Amended Decision disregarded the final judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 134903 [4] which ordered that the case be remanded to VA Calipay for further proceedings. Aggrieved, petitioner Rafael Rondina filed before this Court a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 172212.[5]
Under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a proceeding for indirect contempt may be initiated by the court motu proprio or by a verified petition, to wit:
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. - Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charges and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
Justice Florenz D. Regalado (Ret.) explained that this new rule clarifies with a regulatory norm the proper procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. The practice under the old rules, tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a mere motion without paying any docket or lawful fees and without complying with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. As a consequence of the unregulated procedure, motions for contempt remain pending for resolution although the main case has already been decided, These and other undesirable aspects may now be eliminated with the requirement for full compliance with the requirements.[6]
In the instant contempt petition, we find that petitioners attached mere photocopies of (1) a certified true copy of a Resolution[7] of this Court dated January 16, 2002 in G.R. No. 134903 denying the motion for reconsideration, supplemental motion for reconsideration and 2nd supplemental motion for reconsideration, and (2) the Amended Decision[8] of the Court of Appeals, in violation of Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also failed to fully comply with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings before this Court. Petitioners did not submit a verified statement of material dates, specifically, on when they received the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals and when they filed a motion for reconsideration, if they did. And they failed to serve a copy of their petition on one of the respondents, Atty. Dax Malony P. Montealegre.[9]
For the reasons abovementioned, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for indirect contempt, but without prejudice to Rafael Rondina's pending petition docketed as G.R. No. 172212 where memoranda of the parties have already been noted.
WHEREFORE, UDK-13958 is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo (UDK-13958), pp. 15-27.
[2] Id. at 171.
[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 172212), pp. 11-27.
[4] Unicraft Industries Int'l. Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 407 Phil. 527 (2001).
[5] Rollo (UDK- I3958), p. 18.
[6] I F. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 896-897 (9th revised ed., 2005).
[7] Rollo (UDK-13958), pp. 44-48.
[8] Id. at 110-137.
[9] Id. at 169-170.
