MA. CONCEPCION L. REGALADO, Petitioner, vs. ANTONIO S. GO, Respondent. G.R. No. 1679
!e"r#$r% 6, &''7
C(ICO)NA*ARIO, J .+ .+
Facts: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, of the Resolution 1 dated 30 August 004 of the Court of A!!eals, finding !etitioner "a# Conce!cion $# Regalado %Att&# Regalado' guilt& of indirect conte(!t and is ordered to !a& a fine of Five Thousand Pesos %P5,000', with a )T*R+ AR+-+. that a re!etition of the sa(e or si(ilar acts in the future will /e dealt with (ore severel&## $iewise assailed in this !etition is the Resolution den&ing her "otion for Reconsideration#
-ssue: *T*R 2R +2T T* C2RT 2F APP*A$) C2""-TT* A "A+-F*)T *RR2R 2F $A -+ R$-+. TAT P*T-T-2+*R -) *)T2PP* FR2" CA$$*+.-+. -T) AT2R-T T2 *+T*RTA-+ T* C2+T*"PT CAR.*) A.A-+)T *R#
Ruling: )ection 4, Rule 61 of the sa(e Rules !rovides how !rocee !roceedin dings gs for indi indirec rectt conte conte(!t (!t shoul should d /e co((e co((ence nced, d, thus: )*C# )*C# 4# ow !rocee !roceedi dings ngs co((en co((enced ced## 7 Procee Proceedi dings ngs for indirect conte(!t (a& /e initiated (otu !ro!rio /& the court against which the conte(!t was co((itted /& an order or an& other for(al charge re8uiring the res!ondent to show cause wh& he should not /e !unished for conte(!t# -n all other cases, charges for indirect conte(!t shall /e co((enced /& a verified !etition with su!!orting !articulars and certified true co!ies of docu(ents or !a!ers involved therein, and u!on full co(!liance with the re8uire(ents for fili filing ng init initia iato tor& r& !lea !leadi ding ngs s fo forr civi civill ac acti tion ons s in the the co cou urt conc co ncer erne ned# d# -f the the co cont nte( e(!t !t char charge ges s aros arose e ou outt of or are are related to a !rinci!al action !ending in the court, the !etition for conte(!t shall allege that fact /ut said !etition shall /e doceted, heard and decided se!aratel&, unless the court in its its disc discre reti tion on orde orders rs the the co cons nsol olid idat atio ion n of the the co cont nte( e(!t !t
charge and the !rinci!al action for 9oint hearing and decision# %*(!hases su!!lied#'
As can /e gleaned a/ove, the !rovisions of the Rules are une8uivocal# -ndirect conte(!t !roceedings (a& /e initiated onl& in two wa&s: %1' (otu !ro!rio /& the court or %' through a verified !etition and u!on co(!liance with the re8uire(ents for initiator& !leadings# Procedural re8uire(ents as outlined (ust /e co(!lied with# There is no dou/t that the co(!lained acts of Att&# Regalado would fall under !aragra!hs %a' and %d' of )ection 3, Rule 61, as in fact, she was ad9udged guilt& of indirect conte(!t# ;ut were the !roceedings conducted in convicting !etitioner done in accordance with law< -n the instant case, the indirect conte(!t !roceedings was initiated /& res!ondent .o through a "anifestation with 2(ni/us "otion#30 -t was /ased on the aforesaid "otion that the a!!ellate court issued a Resolution31 dated 1= +ove(/er 003, re8uiring !etitioner Att&# Regalado to show cause wh& she should not /e cited for conte(!t# Clearl&, res!ondent .o>s "anifestation with 2(ni/us "otion was the catal&st which set ever&thing in (otion and led to the eventual conviction of Att&# Regalado# -t was res!ondent .o who /rought to the attention of the a!!ellate court the alleged (is/ehavior co((itted /& !etitioner Att&# Regalado# ithout such !ositive act on the !art of res!ondent .o, no indirect conte(!t charge could have /een initiated at all#
