You are on page 1of 4

Case Digest on YASAY V. RECTO 7 Sept. 1999 Contempt Facts: SEC declared D et al.

guilty of contempt for disobeying a TRO that SEC issued. The CA set aside the order of the SEC, finding D et al. not guilty of contempt. SEC appealed the CAs reversal. Issue: Whether the SEC can validly appeal the CAs decision Held: No. Whether civil or criminal, contempt is still a criminal proceeding and an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt. Moreover, the SEC was rather hasty in asserting its power to punish for contempt. There was no willful disobedience of the SECs order since it was shown that the CA previously nullified the TRO.

Harden vs. Director of Prisoners

Post under case digests, Criminal Law at Wednesday, February 29, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: Fred Harden is being confined in prison for contempt of court. This arose when the plaintiff was restrained from transferring moneys, shares of stock, and other properties and assets involving the administration of conjugal partnership that he had with Mrs. Harden. Mr. Harden, however, transferred cash to various banks in Hongkong and California, as well as to an unknown person. He was ordered by the court to redeposit the money and the Balatoc Mining Co. shares belonging to the conjugal partnership, which he had in Hongkong to the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China (Manila Branch). He was not able to fulfill these orders, and so was put to jail. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, Fred Harden, can warrant a writ of habeas corpus

Held: No. The petition is denied with costs. The grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1) deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights (2) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence or (3) excessive penalty. It was held that the court has jurisdiction to impose the sentence simply because the person charged is in the state and he is still within the jurisdiction of its courts. Moreover, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is not excessive because under Section 7, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, when the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it. This justifies the penalty imposed on Fred Harden, thereby not making it excessive. Moreover, the courts findings are supported by sufficient evidence and it is a matter of fact which cannot be reviewed by habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a writ of error.
Land Bank of the Philippines vs Severino Listana, Sr.
A summary of a decision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines Although this appears to be an agrarian reform related case but it is actually one that rules on the power, or lack of it, of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) to issue contempt orders and consequently order the arrest of persons cited for contempt, as provided for in R.A. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)

Here is the case: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SEVERINO LISTANA, SR., respondent. G.R. No. 152611 August 5, 2003 Facts of the case: Private respondent Listana voluntarily offered to sell his land of 246.0561 ha. in Sorsogon to the government, through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). DAR valued the property at P5,871,689.03 but Listana refused to sell at that price, so the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in an administrative proceeding determined the just compensation of the land at P10,956,963.25 and ordered the Land Bank of the Philippines to pay the same to Listana. A writ of execution was issued by PARAD to that effect but it was apparently not complied with by LBP so a Motion for Contempt was filed by Listana with the PARAD against petitioner LBP. PARAD granted the Motion for Contempt and cited for indirect contempt and ordered the arrest of ALEX A. LORAYES, the Manager of LBP. LBP obtained a preliminary injunction from the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon enjoining DARAB from enforcing the arrest order against Lorayes. Listana filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. CA nullified the order of the RTC. Consequently, petitioner LBP filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether the order for the arrest of petitioner's manager, Mr. Alex Lorayes by the PARAD, was valid. Ruling: The arrest order issued by PARAD against Lorayes was not valid because the contempt proceedings initiated through an unverified "Motion for Contempt" filed by the respondent with the PARAD were themselves invalid. Said proceedings were invalid for the following reasons:

First, the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it was by a motion filed by respondent. Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the power of the PARAD and the DARAB. Consequently, all the proceedings that stemmed from respondent?s "Motion for Contempt," specifically the Orders of the PARAD dated August 20, 2000 and January 3, 2001 for the arrest of Alex A. Lorayes, are null and void