Case. No 16. HernandoBar
Case No. 16 GR No. 240984 2021-09-27
HARBOUR CENTRE PORT TERMINAL v. LA FILIPINA UYGONGCO CORP.
 |
| Case No. 16 GR No. 240984 |
DOCTRINE:
Civil and Criminal Contempt of Court; Double Jeopardy.
Court Ruling:
In Oca v. Custodio, the Court distinguished criminal contempt from civil contempt, as follows:
The punishment for contempt is classified into two (2): civil contempt and criminal contempt.
Civil contempt is committed when a party fails to comply with an order of a court or judge "for the benefit of the other party." Criminal contempt is committed when a party acts against the court's authority and dignity or commits a forbidden act tending to disrespect the court or judge.
This stems from the two (2)-fold aspect of contempt which seeks:
(i) to punish the party for disrespecting the court or its orders; and
(ii) to compel the party to do an act or duty which it refuses to perform.
In Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations:
Due to this two-fold aspect of the exercise of the power to punish them, contempt is classified as civil or criminal. Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered to be done by a court or a judge for the benefit of the opposing party therein; and criminal contempt, is conduct directed against the authority and dignity of a court or of a judge, as in unlawfully assailing or discrediting the authority or dignity of the court or judge, or in doing a duly forbidden act.
Where the punishment imposed, whether against a party to a suit or a stranger, is wholly or primarily to protect or vindicate the dignity and power of the court, either by fine payable to the government or by imprisonment, or both, it is deemed a judgment in a criminal case.
Where the punishment is by fine directed to be paid to a party in the nature of damages for the wrong inflicted, or by imprisonment as a coercive measure to enforce the performance of some act for the benefit of the party or in aid of the final judgment or decree rendered in his behalf the contempt judgment will, if made before final decree, be treated as in the nature of an interlocutory order, or, if made after final decree, as remedial in nature, and may be reviewed only on appeal from the final decree, or in such other mode as is appropriate to the review of judgments in civil cases. x x x
The question of whether the contempt committed is civil or criminal, does not affect the jurisdiction or the power of a Court to punish the same.
The difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt was further elaborated in People v. Godoy:
It has been said that the real character of the proceedings is to be determined by the relief sought, or the dominant purpose, and the proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose, is primarily punishment, and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.
Criminal contempt proceedings are generally held to be in the nature of criminal, or quasi-criminal actions. They are punitive in nature, and the Government, the courts, and the people are interested in their prosecution. Their purpose is to preserve the power and vindicate the authority and dignity of the court, and to punish for disobedience of its orders. Strictly speaking, however, they axe not criminal proceedings or prosecutions, even though the contemptuous act involved is also a crime. The proceeding has been characterized as sui generis, partaking of some of the elements of both a civil and criminal proceeding, but really constituting neither.
In general, criminal contempt proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles and rules applicable to criminal cases, in so far as such procedure is consistent, with the summary nature of contempt proceedings.
So it has been held that the strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt, that the accused is to be afforded many of the protections provided in regular criminal cases, and that proceedings under statutes governing them are to be strictly construed. However, criminal proceedings are not required to take any particular form so long as the substantial rights of the accused are preserved.
Civil contempt proceedings are generally held to be remedial and civil in their nature; that is, they are proceedings for the enforcement of some duty, and essentially a remedy for coercing a person to do the thing required. As otherwise expressed, a proceeding for civil contempt is one instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of a private party to an action and to compel obedience to a judgment or decree intended to benefit such a party litigant.
So a proceeding is one for civil contempt, regardless of its form, if the act charged is wholly the disobedience, by one party to a suit, of a special order made in behalf of the other party and the disobeyed order may still be obeyed, and the purpose of the punishment is to aid in an enforcement of obedience. The rules of procedure governing criminal contempt proceedings, or criminal prosecutions, ordinarily are inapplicable to civil contempt proceedings.
In general, civil contempt proceedings should be instituted by an aggrieved party, or a successor, or someone who has a pecuniary interest in the right to be protected. In criminal contempt proceedings, it is generally held that the State is the real prosecutor.
Contempt is not presumed. In proceedings for criminal contempt, the defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In proceedings for civil contempt, there is no presumption, although the burden of proof is on the complainant, and while the proof need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, it must amount to more than a mere preponderance of evidence.
It has been said that the burden of proof in a civil contempt proceeding lies somewhere between the criminal "reasonable doubt" burden and the civil "fair preponderance" burden. Civil contempt proceedings seek to compel the contemnor to obey a court order, judgment, or decree which he or she refuses to do for the benefit of another party. It is for the enforcement and the preservation of a right of a private party, who is the real party in interest in the proceedings.
The purpose of the contemner's punishment is to compel obedience to the order. Thus, civil contempt is not treated like a criminal proceeding and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary to prove it.
In the case at bar, respondents prayed for the following reliefs in their petition for indirect contempt, as follows:
a) DECLARE [petitioners] guilty of indirect contempt, under Section (b) of Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure;
b) ORDER HCPTI and each of the individual [petitioners] to pay the fine of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) each;
c) ORDER that each of the individual [petitioners] be imprisoned for six (6) months; and
d) ORDER each of the [petitioner] jointly and severally liable to pay [respondents] in the amount of SIXTEEN MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY-NINE and 27/100 (P16,712,789.27), and other demurrage and unloading costs that may be incurred should [petitioners] continue to violate the writ of preliminary injunction after the filing of the instant petition.[23]While the reliefs prayed for by respondents is a combination of both criminal and civil, punishment, the nature of the contempt proceeding in. this case is more civil than criminal. To recall, respondents alleged that during the period. March 9, 2009 to June 28, 2009, thirty-nine (39) of its vessels and barges were denied access to HCPTI's rail lines and unloaders and the use of its port facilities in violation of the WPI and the November 19, 2004 MOA.
Clearly, the purpose of the contempt petition was for the enforcement of the September 25, 2008 WPI. It is a remedy resorted to preserve and enforce the rights of respondents and to compel obedience to the injunctive writ which was issued for their benefit. Hence, the petition for contempt is civil in nature.
Accordingly, an appeal from the decision dismissing the same is not barred by double jeopardy. The appellate court was therefore correct in holding that the petition, for indirect contempt instituted by the respondents herein is civil in nature.
Be that as it may, We find that petitioners are not guilty of indirect contempt.
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice, and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court's order, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or, in some manner, to impede the due administration of justice.
It is a defiance of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation.
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order injudicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice. "However, such power should be exercised on the preservative, not on the vindictive, principle. Only occasionally should the court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect[,] without which the administration of justice will falter or fail." Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised. Such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are hereby GRANTED. The assailed July 13, 2017 Decision and July 24, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38210 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the February 2, 2015 Decision and October 8, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 4-2 are hereby REINSTATED.
We hope you are all well and studying diligently for the upcoming Bar Exams. Please consider donating to assist us in keeping our website up to date for future reference. This will allow us to continue assisting our law students and future Bar candidates by providing them with useful content to aid in their legal studies.
Comments
Post a Comment