G.R. No. 139844 ; December 15, 2000
ATTY. SALOME D. CAÑAS, petitioner, vs. HON. LERIO C. CASTIGADOR (in his capacity as Municipal Trial Court Judge of the Municipality of General Trias, Province of Cavite) and PROSECUTOR ONOFRE M. MARANAN (in his capacity as Municipal Trial Court Prosecutor of General Trias, Cavite), as well as any other officer of the law (in relation to an application for a Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary Injunction), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. Salome Cañas, counsel for the vehicle owner in a criminal case for reckless imprudence, secured the release of an impounded Isuzu truck by filing a motion with an undertaking to produce the accused in court on May 23, 1996, to post bail. On the said date, petitioner and the accused appeared late, finding the court already closed, so petitioner left a note for the judge indicating her office address as “c/o Pepsi Cola Products, Phils., San Fernando, Pampanga.” Subsequently, the judge issued orders on August 14 and September 11, 1996, recalling the vehicle’s release and directing its surrender. These orders, along with a later order setting a hearing for a contempt motion, were sent to an incorrect address: “c/o Pepsi Cola, Phils., San Fernando Plant.” Consequently, all were returned to the court undelivered. Unaware of these proceedings, petitioner failed to attend the hearings. Based on her non-appearance and alleged defiance, respondent Judge Castigador found her guilty of indirect contempt, imposing a fine and a 30-day imprisonment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt despite lack of proper service of court orders.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the contempt order. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental requirement of procedural due process. Indirect contempt, being punitive in nature, requires that the alleged contemnor be afforded the opportunity to be heard. For this opportunity to be meaningful, proper notice is indispensable. The records conclusively showed that the critical court orders were sent to an incorrect and incomplete address (“San Fernando Plant” instead of “San Fernando, Pampanga”), leading to their non-receipt by petitioner. Since she never received the orders recalling the vehicle or the notice for the contempt hearing, she could not have willfully disobeyed them. Willful disobedience, an essential element of indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, presupposes knowledge of the order. Absent proper service, there can be no knowledge, and thus no basis for a finding of contempt. The judge’s act of proceeding with the contempt charge despite the clear lack of service constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment, equivalent to grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that a lawyer’s right to practice is protected, and a contempt power must be exercised judiciously, not vindictively, especially where the failure to comply is not attributable to the lawyer’s fault.