G.R. No. 109373 and G.R. No. 112991. October 13, 1995.
PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and VITALIANO N. NAÑAGAS II, ET AL., respondents.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

This consolidated resolution resolves a Motion to Cite in Contempt filed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), as Liquidator of the insolvent Pacific Banking Corporation (PaBC). The motion sought to cite Judge Regino T. Veridiano II, Deputy Sheriff Carmelo V. Cachero, and Atty. Marino E. Eslao for indirect contempt. The controversy stemmed from their attempt to execute a judgment against PaBC’s garnished funds despite a pending motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had promulgated a decision on March 24, 1995. Merely four days later, on March 28, Atty. Eslao, counsel for the private respondent stockholders/investors, requested Sheriff Cachero to immediately enforce a 1992 Writ of Execution to release garnished PaBC funds from depository banks. Acting with haste, the sheriff demanded the release of funds from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and Philippine National Bank (PNB). LBP complied, releasing over P1.3 million. When PNB refused, Sheriff Cachero reported to Judge Veridiano, who then issued orders on April 3 and 4, 1995, directing PNB to release the funds and threatening its officials with contempt.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Veridiano, Sheriff Cachero, and Atty. Eslao are guilty of indirect contempt for attempting to execute a judgment before it became final and executory.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are guilty of indirect contempt. The Supreme Court emphasized that a decision becomes final only after the lapse of the period to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, and once filed, execution must await the resolution of such motion. The Court’s decision dated March 24, 1995, was not final when the respondents acted, as the PDIC Liquidator timely filed a motion for reconsideration on April 11, 1995. The respondents’ actions constituted a clear disregard of judicial process and authority.
The legal logic is grounded on the fundamental principle of orderly administration of justice and respect for the hierarchy of courts. Judge Veridiano, as a judicial officer, exhibited gross ignorance of basic procedural law by ordering execution pending a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court, violating the doctrine of finality of judgments. Sheriff Cachero, as an agent of the court, displayed undue haste and overzealousness by acting on a mere request from a party’s counsel instead of awaiting a proper court order, thereby failing in his duty to maintain impartiality. Atty. Eslao, while duty-bound to advance his client’s cause, overstepped ethical boundaries by instigating immediate execution with knowledge that the judgment was not yet final, thus impeding the administration of justice. Their collective actions obstructed the Court’s processes. The Branch Clerk of Court was absolved for lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Consequently, the Court found the three respondents guilty of indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, imposing a fine of P1,000 each with a warning.