GR 127936; (October, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. 127936 October 14, 1998
THELMA C. PANADO, MARTINA C. RELLORTA, MANUEL CRISTOBAL, FRANCIANINA C. ROGA, GENOVEVA C. ELESORIO, ANGEL CRISTOBAL, TEODOLFO CRISTOBAL, VALERIA C. FELIX, FELOMINA C. REYES, ALVIN CRISTOBAL, FELICIANO CRISTOBAL, JR., RAMIL CRISTOBAL, JENELYN C. NEPOMUCENO and JESILA CRISTOBAL, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. SHEILA MARTELINO-CORTES, Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 9; THE SHERIFF, Regional Trial Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 9; HERNANDO CORTES; ANASTACIO CORTES, JR.; AMANDO CORTES; BIENVENIDO CORTES; DAISY CORTES-BAUTISTA; and EDITH CORTES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 4187 for quieting of title against private respondents. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on grounds of res judicata and forum-shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. After the CA decision became final and executory, private respondents moved for execution. The RTC, through Judge Sheila Martelino-Cortes, issued an order for a writ of execution. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA challenging the writ. The CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) addressed to the public respondents (the RTC judge and sheriff) to desist from enforcing the assailed order and writ of execution. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Petition to Declare Private Respondents in Contempt of Court before the CA, alleging that private respondents entered the disputed property in violation of the TRO. The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and the contempt petition, finding no factual or legal basis for contempt. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Respondent Court committed reversible error in finding that private respondents cannot be held for contempt of court.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for utter lack of merit. The Court held that private respondents could not be held in contempt. First, the TRO was addressed only to the public respondents (the RTC judge and sheriff), commanding them to desist from enforcing the writ of execution; it did not contain any order directed at the private respondents. Therefore, private respondents could not be guilty of disobeying a court order they were not commanded to follow. Second, the TRO restrained the enforcement of the writ of execution for Civil Case No. 4187, which merely dismissed the complaint for quieting of title and ordered petitioners to pay costs. The act of entering the property was not proscribed by this TRO. The Court emphasized that contempt powers must be exercised sparingly, on the preservative and not vindictive principle. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioners were improperly using an action challenging a writ of execution to collaterally attack final and executory judgments in related cases (Civil Case Nos. 1142 and 3951). The Court warned petitioners’ counsels from the Public Attorneys’ Office to argue only on relevant facts and avoid interjecting irrelevant matters that serve merely to confuse and annoy the Court. Costs were imposed against petitioners.