ENGRACIO U. ANG., JR., VS SPOUSES BENJAMIN M.

BITANGA and MARILYN ANDAL BITANGA,

MANILA GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB,.INC BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS- STOCK TRANSFER
OFFICE and WILFRED T. SIY.

GR NO. 223046, November 28,2019

Tickler:
Finality of decision of contempt cases

Case Doctrine:
No appeal could lie against it, a judgement or final order dismissing a charge of indirect contempt on the
merits – like an acquittal in a criminal case- necessarily becomes final and executory upon its
promulgation.

FACTS:
Pyramid construction company is a domestic construction company, Macrogen Realty engages the
services of Pyramid company for the construction of a mall in Sucat, Paranaque. However, Macrogen
failed to settle its outstanding obligation. Pyramid initiated arbitration proceedings before the Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission ( CIAC)in order to compel Macrogen to settle its obligation, the parties
entered into a compromise agreement which effectively abated the progress of the arbritation proceeding.

The fulfillment of by Macrogen of its obligation under the compromise agreement was secured by a
guaranty of the respondent Benjamin Bitanga, the president of the Macrogen, he “absolutely,
unconditionally and irrevocably” guaranteed the full and complete payment by Macrogen of its obligation
under the compromise agreement. However, Macrogen failed to comply with the compromise agreement.

Because of the failure of Macrogen to comply with the compromise agreement, Pyramid filed with the
CIAC a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution against Macrogen. The CIAC granted the motion,
however the sheriff filed a return on the writ of execution stating that he was unable to locate any property
of macrogen except the laters bank account Pyramid send a letter of demand to Bitanga but it was also
went unheeded. Thus Pyramid filed before the RTC complaint for specific performance, Notice of
garnishment and execution sale. Pyramid claimed that the notice of garnishment was served to the
corporate secretary of Manila gofl & country club (MGCCI)

Bitanga was adjudged by the supreme court as liable for the debt of Macrogen as a guarantor and
Pyramid won as the highest bidder in the public sale of shares of stocks in MGGCI which was subject of
the notice of garnishment, Pyramid requested MGCCI for the transfer of the stocks in its name, however it
was tured daw by MGCCI because the said stocks was already sold and transferred to Wilfred Siy.

Pyramid the filed an indirect contempt case against MGCCI, Bitanga and Siy, The RTC initially found
them to be guiltiy of indirect contempt however it was later on found by the RTC that they were incapable
of violating the notice of garnishment because such notice was not delivered to MGCCI or Siy but to a
completely different entiry, the Manila Polo Club.

Pyramid assigned all its rights and interest as judgment creditor to Engracio U. Ang, petitioner.

ISSUE:
Is the dismissal in the indirect contempt case final and unappealable?

HELD:

YES.
The order of the RTC dismissing / absolving MGCCI and SIY the case for indirect contempt became final
and executory immediately upon its promulgation. This is due to the norm, observed in our jurisdiction,
that regards as unappealable any judgment or final order that dismisses on the merits a charge of indirect
contempt. Sec 11, Rule 71 provides that the appeal in contempt proceedings may be taken as in criminal
case. Hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an
exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court.
Since no appeal could lie against it, a judgement or final order dismissing a charge of indirect contempt
on the merits – like an acquittal in a criminal case- necessarily becomes final and executory upon its
promulgation.