G.R. No. L-41361 March 8, 1976
RODRIGO V. FONTELERA and AMADO A. FONTELERA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE AUGUSTO M. AMORES and MARY AGNES BURNS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Amado A. Fontelera obtained a favorable judgment from the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch I, presided by respondent Judge Augusto M. Amores. The decision enjoined private respondent Mary Agnes Burns and her agents from gathering fruits from mango trees on the litigated land and ordered the proceeds from previous sales to be delivered to Amado. Alleging that Burns and her agents violated this injunction by gathering mango fruits on April 8, 1975, Amado, joined by Rodrigo V. Fontelera, filed a motion to declare them in indirect contempt. The motion contained a notice of hearing set for June 17, 1975, at 10:00 a.m.
On the scheduled date, petitioners and their witnesses appeared at the sala at the designated time but were informed that their motion had already been denied because they were not present earlier when the matter was purportedly heard. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In her answer to this motion, private respondent Burns asked that petitioners be punished for direct contempt. Respondent Judge then issued an order requiring petitioner Rodrigo V. Fontelera to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for using in his pleadings language described as “tyranny or capricious and whimsical exercise of power” and that it “sparkles the rays of prejudice and personal hostility.” After proceedings, respondent Judge found Rodrigo guilty of direct contempt and fined him P200.00.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in (1) finding petitioner Rodrigo V. Fontelera guilty of direct contempt, and (2) summarily dismissing petitioners’ motion for indirect contempt against private respondent.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding of direct contempt. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts but must be exercised with restraint and judiciousness to avoid arbitrariness. The offensive language used by Rodrigo V. Fontelera in his pleadings, impugning the judge’s motives and characterizing the court’s action as tyrannical and prejudiced, constituted direct contempt as it was disrespectful to the court’s dignity and obstructed the administration of justice. The fine imposed was thus proper.
On the second issue, the Court found grave abuse of discretion in the summary dismissal of the motion for indirect contempt. The right to a hearing is a fundamental element of due process. The dismissal solely because petitioners were not present at an earlier, unspecified time—despite their appearance at the time they themselves noticed—was too hasty and violated this right. The motion alleged a serious charge of violating a court injunction, which, if proven, warranted judicial inquiry. The failure to afford petitioners a hearing on the merits of their motion was a denial of due process. Therefore, the order of dismissal was nullified, and respondent Judge was directed to hear the motion for indirect contempt. The writs of certiorari and mandamus were granted accordingly.