ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136275. January 18, 1999]

LEARNING CHILD, INC. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18, 1999.

G.R. No. 136275 (Learning Child, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, Ayala Alabang Village Association and Edgardo L. Limon, Renan R. Osera, Alfredo R. de Borja, Maricar G. Reyes, et al.)

Petitioner assails the decision of the Court of Appeals holding that the act of private respondents Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA) in issuing the two circulars to all residents of said village did not constitute indirect contempt as provided for under Rule 71, Section 3(d) of the Rules of Court.

The present controversy stemmed from an action filed by AAVA praying that petitioner be enjoined from operating a grade school for allegedly being in violation of the Deed of Restrictions entered into by petitioner and the Developer of the Village, which was decided in favor of private respondent but thereafter reversed on petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Thereafter, AAVA appealed to the Court of Appeals and it was during the pendency of the appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51096, that AAVA issued Circulars No. 97-150 and 98-21 to its member residents of the village.

In reaction to said circulars, petitioners filed a petition to cite AAVA and its officers for indirect contempt, claiming that the act of private respondents in issuing and publishing the circulars constituted improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice in CA-G.R. CV No. 51096.

The Court of Appeals thought otherwise. Hence, the instant petition.

The petition is unavailing.

A perusal of the subject circulars clearly shows that other than reporting the development of the litigation between petitioner and private respondent AAVA, no substantial ground can be found to cause a citation for indirect contempt. That the matter revealed in said circulars is subjudice is also of no moment. The circulars were disseminated to the residents of Ayala Alabang Village, the very members of private respondents AAVA and who are, therefore, entitled to be informed of the progress and status of the case. As it is, the circulars merely recount the pleadings filed and the issuances made by the court, stated in plain unopinionated language. We find nothing in said circulars which tend to directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. A party cannot be punished for contempt in doing a thing that has not been prohibited or in omitting an act the performance of which has not been required (CMS Investment and Management Corp. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 139 SCRA 75 [1985]).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE