ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 134542. October 1, 2001]

ATTY. ALBERTO DRILON vs. COSMOPOLITAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted 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. Ca�a et. al., and Securities Exchange Commission En Banc,.)

Before us is petitioners' motion to cite counsel, Atty. Lyndon Ca�a, 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. Ca�a 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. Ca�a 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 Court.

"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. Ca�a for contempt is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE