[G.R. No. 134542. October 1, 2001]
ATTY. ALBERTO DRILON vs. COSMOPOLITAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH et al.
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 1 2001.
G.R. No. 134542(Atty. Alberto Drilon, Rev.
Bello Cato, vs. Cosmopolitan Evangelical Church (Bacolod City), Inc. and
Members of the Board of Trustees namely: Atty. Lyndon P. Caņa et. al., and
Securities Exchange Commission En Banc,.)
Before us is petitioners'
motion to cite counsel, Atty. Lyndon Caņa, in contempt of court.
The principal action, a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, was
denied by this Court (2nd Division) in its resolution dated January 17, 2001.
This Court, in a
subsequent resolution dated June 20, 2001, denied with finality the
petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The motion to cite Atty.
Caņa in contempt was based on articles referring to the first resolution of
this Court which were allegedly caused to be published or printed by the said
counsel. According to the petitioners, the questioned publications made
unfounded interpretations of the said resolution denying the petition.
We have read the articles
in contention from the very annexes attached to the petitioners' motion and we
found nothing contemptuous with the same. The articles merely informed the
public of the Court's Resolution. The interpretation that followed was never
imputed as part of the Court's Resolution but rather a consequence of the same.
This may be gleaned from the transitional phrase "in effect".
Even without such finding,
the motion is bereft of any showing that Atty. Caņa was the one who caused the
publication of the questioned articles.
More importantly however,
the motion fell flat on its face for being fatally defective. The same utterly
violates the requisites laid down in Rule 71, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of
"SEC. 4. How proceedings
commenced.- Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which
the contempt was committed by an 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 charge and the principal action for joint
hearing and decision."
WHEREFORE, the motion to cite Atty. Lyndon P. Caņa for contempt is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court