G.R. No. 107671 February 26, 1997
REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The antecedent case involved a 1983 complaint for abatement of nuisance and damages filed by spouses Ochoa against Remman Enterprises, Inc. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Ochoas, ordering Remman to cease draining waste onto their property. In 1990, the Ochoas filed a complaint for indirect contempt, alleging Remman’s continued defiance of the 1984 decision. A hearing was held where Remman denied the allegations. Given the conflicting claims, the trial court ordered an ocular inspection, authorizing the branch clerk of court to conduct it and submit a report.
The ocular inspection was conducted on the same day in the presence of both parties and their counsel. Based on the clerk’s ex parte report, which found that foul-smelling waste was still draining into the Ochoa estate, the trial court found Remman guilty of indirect contempt. It imposed a fine and ordered Remman to construct a preventive structure. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders. Remman appealed, arguing it was denied due process as the contempt finding was based solely on the commissioner’s report, which was not furnished to the parties nor set for a hearing as required under Rules 33.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner may be validly held liable for indirect contempt based on a single hearing and an ex parte ocular inspection report without the procedural requirements of Rules 33 being followed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of indirect contempt. The Court distinguished the proceeding from a civil case requiring a trial-type hearing. Contempt proceedings are summary in nature. The essence of due process in such proceedings is an opportunity to be heard, which was afforded to Remman during the May 18, 1990 hearing where it presented its defense. The subsequent ocular inspection was not an independent proceeding but an auxiliary process to verify factual claims, conducted with both parties present. The report was merely a factual finding submitted to the judge.
The formal requirements of Sections 10 and 11 of Rule 33, regarding furnishing copies of a commissioner’s report and setting it for hearing, apply to references ordered under Rule 32 for protracted trial computations. They do not govern a simple ocular inspection ordered by the court to resolve a factual issue in a summary contempt proceeding. The Court held that adopting the report without a formal hearing did not violate due process, as Remman had already been heard and was present during the inspection. The finding of continued waste drainage constituted defiance of a court order, warranting the contempt citation.