GR 117266; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117266 . March 13, 1997.
IN THE MATTER OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VENTURA O. DUCAT and TENG MARIANO AND CRUZ LAW OFFICES, PAPA SECURITIES CORPORATION, petitioner.
FACTS
Papa Securities Corporation obtained a final and executory judgment for a sum of money against Ventura O. Ducat. After multiple properties were levied and sold at execution to satisfy the debt, Ducat’s residential property in Wack Wack was auctioned, with Papa Securities as the highest bidder. Ducat filed various motions to annul this sale, arguing excessive execution and procedural defects, including a claim that the property was an exempt family home. The trial court and the Court of Appeals denied these motions, and the Supreme Court subsequently denied Ducat’s petitions. Despite these final denials, Ducat, through his new counsel Atty. Elgar Cruz of Teng Mariano and Cruz Law Offices, filed further motions before the trial court, including an “urgent motion to declare failure of auction sale,” re-litigating the settled issue of whether the bid price exceeded the judgment debt and arguing the sale was void for non-payment of any excess.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Ventura O. Ducat and Atty. Elgar Cruz are guilty of indirect contempt for filing frivolous motions that obstructed and delayed the execution of a final judgment.
RULING
Yes, respondents are guilty of indirect contempt. The legal logic is grounded in the principle of finality of judgments and the prohibition against dilatory tactics. A judgment that has become final and executory is immutable and unalterable. The issues raised by Ducat regarding the execution sale—excessiveness of the bid, the claim of the property as a family home, and the validity of the sale proceedings—had already been conclusively passed upon and rejected by the trial court, the Court of Appeals, and ultimately the Supreme Court. By filing repetitive motions re-arguing these definitively settled matters, Ducat, with the assistance of Atty. Cruz, engaged in a clear scheme to unjustly delay the satisfaction of the judgment. Atty. Cruz, as an officer of the court, had a duty to inform himself of the case’s procedural history and not to assist in circumventing final orders. Their actions constituted willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the Supreme Court and an improper attempt to impede the administration of justice. The Court imposed a corrective fine of P500.00 on Ducat and a higher fine of P1,000.00 on Atty. Cruz, with a warning against repetition.