G.R. No. L-12581; May 29, 1959
Maximo Galvez, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., defendant-appellee. Attorneys Raquiza, Supnet, De Gracia and Asuncion, respondents-appellants.

FACTS

In a case before the Court of Appeals (C.A. — G.R. No. 15437 -R), costs were awarded to appellee Maximo Galvez. His attorneys, the law firm of Raquiza, Supnet, De Gracia and Asuncion, filed a bill of costs amounting to P502.35 with the Manila Clerk of Court on January 17, 1957. After no opposition was filed within the period, the attorneys secured a writ of execution on January 25. However, on January 24, the opposing counsel had filed an opposition, arguing the recoverable costs should only be P60.00. The trial court, Judge Gregorio Narvasa presiding, issued an order on February 2 giving the appellant five days to seek clarification from the Court of Appeals regarding the scope of the costs awarded. Before any clarification was obtained, and despite the pending motion for clarification filed by appellant in the Court of Appeals on February 7, appellee’s counsel filed an ex-parte motion. Based on this, the court ordered the sheriff on February 13 to deliver the garnished amount (P472.67, collected on January 27) to appellee’s counsel. Atty. Eugenio de Gracia received the money on February 14. On February 22, the Court of Appeals resolved that the costs awarded referred only to those incurred in the appellate court. Upon being informed of this resolution, the trial court, on March 16, reduced the costs to P20.00 and ordered the return of the balance (P473.00) to the appellant. Appellee’s counsel did not return the money. After several orders and extensions, the court on June 7, 1957, ordered them to show cause why they should not be declared in contempt for failing to comply with the return order. The court found their act of securing execution while knowing the motion for clarification was pending to be contemptuous. On June 26, the court declared the attorneys in contempt and ordered Atty. De Gracia imprisoned until the court’s order for the return of the money was complied with.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly held the attorneys for appellee in contempt of court for failing to return the excess amount collected as costs, which they obtained through execution despite their knowledge of a pending motion for clarification in the Court of Appeals.

RULING

Yes, the trial court’s order of contempt is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the attorneys’ action in filing an urgent ex-parte motion for execution, knowing full well that a motion for clarification of the costs award was still pending resolution in the Court of Appeals, constituted contempt. Their subsequent failure to comply with the court’s lawful order to return the excess amount, despite having possession of it and being given ample time (over 70 days from the initial order), justified the coercive measure of imprisonment. The imprisonment ordered is civil or remedial in nature, intended to coerce compliance with the court’s directive to return the money, as the contemner “carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket” and can secure release by obeying the order. The Court found no merit in the contention that the order constituted imprisonment for a debt, as it was an enforcement of a court order for the return of funds obtained under questionable circumstances. The order is in accordance with Section 7, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. Compliance with the order to return the amount is ordered; otherwise, the imprisonment order would be enforced.