Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

9th Judicial Region
Branch ___, Zamboanga City

ANGELA B. DATOLIO Civil Case No. 7885-939

- Plaintiff,
- for -
- versus -
Damages
ELVIRA E. VICENTE and
MARIBEL O. DATOLIO,
- Defendants.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COMMENTS AND OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S

MANIFESTATION WITH MOTION TO HOLD DEFENDANT
LIABLE FOR VIOLATING SUB JUDICE RULE

COMES NOW Defendants, through counsel, unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully submits this Comments and Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Manifestation with Motion to Hold Defendant Liable for
Violating Sub Judice Rule, and hereby argues that:

1. Indeed, herein Defendant ELVIRA E. VICENTE received Summons

and copy of the complaint in the instant case on December 1, 2022,
and still has thirty (30) days within which to file her responsive
pleading;

2. Said Manifestation filed by herein Plaintiff has no merit whatsoever,

as the filing of a complaint in the barangay by herein Defendant
ELVIRA E. VICENTE against MARILYN C. DATOLIO is clearly an
exercise her own right to file an action which is separate and distinct
from the cause of action filed in the instant case;

3. Said barangay complaint seeks redress from a derogatory statement

against herein Defendant made in the sworn judicial affidavit of
MARILYN C. DATOLIO which is clearly actionable, both civil and
criminal, and the truth or falsity thereof bears no significance to the
issues raised in the instant case to determine herein Defendants’ guilt
or innocence for damages;

4. On the contrary, Plaintiff’s Manifestation is clearly an attempt to

subvert Defendant’s enforceable right which must not be
countenanced through remission by this Honorable Court;

5. In opposition, said Manifestation with Motion is infirm and must be

denied, thusly:
a. Plaintiff’s mere assertion that the nature and purpose of the
barangay complaint against MARILYN DATOLIO is to
change her statement as complainant’s witness is clearly
presumptuous and without proof, and thus, not actionable;

b. Plaintiff’s sterile intent of invoking the sub judice rule is clearly

to incriminate herein Defendant for indirect contempt;

c. Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and

hearing. - After a charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by
himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts
may be punished for indirect contempt:

i. Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance

of his official duties or in his official transactions;

ii. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process,

order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a
person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from
any real property by the judgment or process of any
court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or
induces another to enter into or upon such real property,
for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or
possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession
given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;

iii. Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the

processes or proceedings of a court not constituting
direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;

iv. Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to

impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of
justice;

d. Indirect contempt refers to contumacious acts perpetrated

outside of the sitting of the court and may include misbehavior
of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties,
or in his official transactions, disobedience of or resistance to a
lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court,
or injunction granted by a court or judge, any abuse or any
unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt, or any improper conduct
tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the
administration of justice;

e. Be it then stressed that herein Defendant has yet to file her

Answer within the period set forth in the Summons, which
condition cannot enable her to commit any act of disobedience
or resistance to any injunction order issued by this Honorable
Court to prevent her from further exercising her enforceable
right;
 f. Tainting Defendant’s exercise of a right as an act that impedes,
obstruct or degrade the administration of justice is clearly
contentious;

g. In P/Supt Hansel M. Marantan v. Atty. Jose Manuel Diokno

and Monique Cu-Unjieng La’O,1 our Supreme Court
pronounced that for a comment or action to be considered as
contempt of court "it must really appear" that such does
impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of
justice.2 What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-
important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision
of a pending case.3 The specific rationale for the sub judice rule
is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be
immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be
decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the
determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias,
prejudice or sympathies;4

h. Clearly, this Honorable Court’s administration of justice in the

instant case can be exercised on the issues raised by parties in
the instant case regardless of the lawful action taken by
Defendant ELVIRA E. VICENTE against MARILYN C.
DATOLIO;

i. Further, we respectfully submit that Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold

Defendant liable for violating the sub judice rule is an improper
mode in seeking court intervention to hold Defendant liable for
indirect contempt, as the rule requires a verified petition
initiated by a party or by an order or any other formal charge
requiring the respondent to show cause why he/she should not
be punished for contempt. This formal defect is a failure to
comply with Section 4 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court merits
outright denial of motion;

j. Likewise, we adjure this Honorable Court not to issue such

formal charge for indirect court, as we earlier stressed that
herein Defendant’s filing of a complaint against MARILYN C.
DATOLIO is a lawful exercise of the former’s right to honor,
there being a clear intent to malign and disrespect herein
Defendant;

6. All said, Petitioner’s Manifestation with Motion to Hold Defendant

Liable for Violating Sub Judice Rule is a nullity with the obvious
malevolent intent to persuade this Honorable Court of a false cause,
and to delay the proceedings in the instant case;

1
G.R. No. 205956, February 12, 2014
2
People v. Castelo, 114 Phil. 892, 900 (1962); citing People v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265 (1939)
3
People v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265, 271 (1939)
4
Romero v. Estrada, G.R. No. 174105, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 396, 403; citing Nestle Philippines v.
Sanchez, 238 Phil. 543 (1987)
 Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein Defendants, through

counsel, most respectfully pray that an ORDER be issued to DENY
Plaintiff’s Manifestation with Motion to Hold Defendant Liable for
Violating Sub Judice Rule, and to grant other relief and remedies that are
just and equitable under the circumstances.

Zamboanga City, Philippines, December 12, 2022.

ELVIRA E. VICENTE MARIBEL O. DATOLIO

Assisted by:

ATTY. YASSER HAKIM

Counsel for Accused
IBP O.R. No. 094221/01-02-2020/Zamboanga City
PTR O.R. No. 7457628/01-01-2020/Zamboanga City
Roll No. 5995
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. VI-0028619, until 4/14/2022

Copy furnished:

Atty. EUNICE MAE ANN T. SERNEO

Plaintiff’s Counsel
ALBA DECIN LATIP & ASSOCIATES
Ground Floor, BSC Tower
Veterans Avenue, Camino Nuevo
Zamboanga City