INDIRECT CONTEMPT

LORENZO SHIPPING CORPORATION, OCEANIC CONTAINER LINES, INC., SOLID

SHIPPING LINESCORPORATION, SULPICIO LINES, INC., ET AL., vs.
DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENTASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, LORENZO
CINCO, and CORA CURAY
G.R. No. 155849 August 31, 2011
BERSAMIN,
J.:
FACTS:
Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued a Letter-Resolution, advising respondent
DistributionManagement Association of the Philippines (DMAP) that a computation of the required
freight rateadjustment by MARINA was no longer required for freight rates officially considered or
declaredderegulated in accordance with MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 153 (MC 153). For clarity,
MARINAissued MC 153 pursuant to Executive Order No. 213 (EO 213) entitled Deregulating Domestic
ShippingRates promulgated by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 24, 1994. DMAP challenged
theconstitutionality of EO 213 and commenced in CA a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition,
withprayer for preliminary mandatory injunction or temporary restraining order ; these actions
weresubsequently dismissed and such decision was upheld by the Court on appeal.DMAP then held a
general membership meeting where it reproduced the Sea Transport update wherein itwas averred among
others that The Motion for Reconsideration filed with the Supreme Court was deniedbased on
technicalities and not on the legal issue DMAP presented and Supreme Court ruling issued inone month
only, normal leadtime is at least 3 to 6 months. Lorenzo Shipping Corp, et al, alleges that suchpublication
constitutes indirect contempt.
ISSUE:
Whether the publication of the Sea Transport Update constitutes indirect contempt.
HELD:
NO. The right of a lawyer, or of any other person, for that matter, to be critical of the courts and
their judges as long as the criticism is made in respectful terms and through legitimate channels have lo
ng
recognized and respected. The test for criticizing a judge’s decision is, therefore, whether or not the
criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety.Viewed through the prism of the test, the Sea Transport Update was not disrespectful, abusive,
orslanderous, and did not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Thereby, the respondents were
notguilty of indirect contempt of court. In this regard, then, we need to remind that the power to punish
forcontempt of court is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle, and
onlyoccasionally should a court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which
theadministration of justice must falter or fail.