ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1433. June 18, 2003]

LEONIDAS vs. SUPNET

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 18 2003.

A.M. No. MTJ-02-1433 (Tomas R. Leonidas vs. Judge Francisco G. Supnet, MeTC, Pasay City, Branch 47.)

Before us is a Motion filed by petitioner Tomas R. Leonidas ("petitioner") seeking a reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated 21 February 2003.

In his Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner prays that this Court reconsiders its decision only with regard to the first order of direct contempt which was issued against him by respondent Judge Francisco G. Supnet ("respondent judge"). Petitioner likewise prays that respondent judge be found to have acted with grave ignorance of the law and be meted another fine in addition to that already imposed on him in the Decision sought to be reconsidered.

Petitioner contends that respondent judge had lost all power and authority to continue with the contempt proceedings filed by the spouses Tamondongs in view of the dismissal of the main case. Petitioner cites the ruling in Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals ^[1] cralaw that a "dismissal or discontinuance of an action operates to annul orders, rulings or judgments previously made in the case."

The contention is untenable. The phrase "orders, rulings or judgments previously made in the case" referred to in Servicewide Specialists, Inc. case pertains to those orders, rulings or judgment involving the main case and not to a case incident to the main case as in contempt proceedings. A contempt proceedings, however, is different. It is a separate proceeding which partakes of a criminal nature and is summary in character which the court exercises but in a limited jurisdiction. ^[2] cralaw A charge for contempt of court partakes of the nature of a criminal action even when the act complained of is an incident to a civil action. ^[3] cralaw Thus, a judgment in the contempt proceedings is maintained regardless of the dismissal of the main case. And the court, despite the dismissal of the main case, still retains jurisdiction over the contempt case.

To reiterate, the power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all courts. Its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the reinforcement of their lawful orders and decisions. ^[4] cralaw No matter what happens in the main case, the trial court still possesses the power to discipline and sanction all those who appear before it, to ensure their strict adherence to its rules and orders.

It must be remembered that the civil case for damages was dismissed by the Pasay MTC as a result of petitioner's forum shopping since petitioner failed to disclose that the case was previously brought before and dismissed by the Pasay RTC. Consequently, the Pasay MTC deemed it fit to punish petitioner's deliberate attempt to forum shop by declaring petitioner in direct contempt of court.

Petitioner now ridiculously attempts to have that first contempt order overturned simply because the Pasay MTC dismissed the case. If we were to uphold petitioner's contention, this would inevitably lead to the erosion of the courts' contempt power. And pursuing petitioner's thinking to its logical end, the courts would no doubt be stripped of their power to prevent parties from shopping for more favorable fora. The judiciary would be bereft of a security measure to ensure its self-preservation. And lawyers will be able to get away with their flagrant abuse of procedural law by simply invoking the Servicewide doctrine to escape the punitive effects of a contempt order.

WHEREFORE, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit."

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw 327 Phil. 431 (1996).

^[2] cralaw In re Mison, Jr. v. Subido, L-27704, 28 May 1970, 33 SCRA 30.

^[3] cralaw Benedicto, et al. v. Ca�ada, et al., 129 Phil. 298 (1967).

^[4] cralaw In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 (1949).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011