WHEN THE COURT IS CO EQUAL interference is not allowed.

DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL STABILITY

NO court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders 
of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to 
grant the relief sought by injunction.

G.R. No. 128623

THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION, petitioner, 
vs.
ESTEBAN YAU, THE COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTEENTH 
DIVISION), and the HON. DELIA H. PANGANIBAN, in her 
capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of 
Makati City, Branch 64, respondents.

the doctrine of judicial stability or non­interference in the regular
orders or judgments of a co­equal court, as an accepted axiom in
adjective   law,   serves   as   an   insurmountable   barrier   to   the
competencia of the RTC Cebu City to entertain a motion, much
less issue an order, relative to the Silverio share which is under
the custodia legis of RTC Makati City, Branch 64, by virtue of a
prior   writ   of   attachment.   Indeed,   the   policy   of   peaceful   co­
existence   among  courts   of  the same  judicial  plane, so to  speak,
was aptly described in Parco v. Court of Appeals,31 thus:

...[J]urisdiction is vested in the court not in any particular branch
or judge, and as a corollary rule, the various branches of the Court
of First Instance of a judicial district are a coordinate and co­equal
courts one branch stands on the same level as the other. Undue
interference by one on the proceedings and processes of another is
prohibited   by   law.   In   the   language   of   this   Court,   the   various
branches   of   the   Court   of   First   Instance   of   a   province   or   city,
having as they have the same or equal authority and exercising as
they do concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction should not, cannot,
and   are   not   permitted   to   interfere   with   their   respective   cases,
much less with their orders or judgments.
 the doctrine of non-interference has been regarded as an elementary
principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened,
modified, or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction (30-A Am
Jur 605). As this Court ruled in the case of Mas vs. Dumara-og, 12
SCRA 34 [1964], a Judge of a branch of one should not annul the
order of a judge of another branch of the same court. Any branch
even if it be in the same judicial district that attempts to annul a
judgment of a branch of the CFI either exceeds its jurisdiction
(Cabigo vs. Del Rosario, 44 Phil. 84 [1949]) or acts with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction (PNB vs.
Javellana, 92 Phil. 525 [1952]). Thus, in the case of Parco vs. Ca, 111
SCRA 262, this Court held that the various branches of the Court
of First Instance being co-equal cannot interfere with the
respective cases of each branch, much less a branch's order or
judgment.

“CONTEMPT”

RULE 71  Indirect contempt to pe punished after charge and 
hearing
(a)MISBEHAVIOR of an officer oa a court in the performance of 
his official duties or in his official transactions:

*DELAYING TACTICTS BY LAWYER­  is clearly constitute 
misbehavior before the court in FACIE CURIAE, summarily 
punishable in accordance with Rule 71, sec 1.
 ( c). Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes 
or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under 
sec 1 of this rule.
 (d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to 
impede, OBSTRUCT, or degrade the administration of justice;

Sec 7 of rule 71 last par.
Punishment of Indirect Contempt

“The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for the 
enforcement of a judgment imposing a fine unless the court 
otherwise provides”
THEREFORE any abuse of legal process or proceedings is also 
contempt. Unlawful interference with judicial process is also 
contempt, And the attorney on whose advice such interference is 
committees is also guilty of contempt.

Lastly contempt of court be Filed where contempt has been 
committed . There is no question that disobedience or resistance to 
alwful writ constitute Indirect Contempt and punishable under Rule 
71 of the Rules of Court.