G.R. No. 186589; July 18, 2014
RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and LORNA CILLAN-SILVERIO, Petitioners, vs. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (Ricardo Sr.) and Lorna Cillan-Silverio filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt with the Court of Appeals (CA) against respondent Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (Ricardo Jr.). The petition stemmed from the intestate estate proceedings of the late Beatriz S. Silverio. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order removing Ricardo Sr. as administrator of the estate and appointing Ricardo Jr. in his stead, among other directives. Nelia Silverio-Dee, another heir, challenged this order via a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 97196). The CA, in Resolutions dated July 4, 2007 and February 29, 2008, granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the RTC’s Omnibus Order and allowing Ricardo Sr. to continue as administrator pending resolution of the main petition. Subsequently, on June 13, 2008, Ricardo Jr. sent demand letters to Ricardo Sr. and Lorna, demanding that Ricardo Sr. cease exercising stockholder rights in and managing Pilipinas Development Corporation (an estate asset) and that Lorna vacate a residential house in Urdaneta Village (also an estate asset). Petitioners alleged that on June 20, 2008, Ricardo Jr., accompanied by lawyers, attempted to forcibly evict occupants from the Urdaneta Village property. Petitioners contended these acts violated the CA’s injunctive Resolutions and constituted indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court. The CA dismissed the contempt petition in its February 25, 2009 Decision, citing that Ricardo Jr. had appealed the CA’s July 4, 2007 Resolution to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 178676), questioning its validity. The CA held it was compelled to restrain from resolving the contempt issues out of respect for the hierarchy of courts, pending the Supreme Court’s settlement of the controversy surrounding the injunction’s propriety.

ISSUE

Whether the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court on the validity of an injunction issued by the Court of Appeals precludes the CA from adjudicating whether supervening acts allegedly committed in defiance of that injunction constitute indirect contempt, based on the principle of respect for hierarchy of courts.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the assailed CA Decision, and remanded the case to the CA for further proceedings. The Court held that the CA erred in dismissing the contempt petition based solely on the principle of hierarchy of courts due to a pending appeal. The pendency of an appeal does not automatically divest a court of its jurisdiction to hear a contempt charge arising from alleged violations of its orders. A charge of indirect contempt requires a hearing; the respondent may not be convicted on the basis of written pleadings alone. The CA should have proceeded to hear the contempt charge on its merits. The Court clarified that the principle of hierarchy of courts is a policy of self-restraint to guide litigants on the proper forum for relief, not a jurisdictional bar that prevents a court from exercising its inherent power to punish contempt. The CA’s injunctive Resolutions, unless stayed by a higher court, remain valid and enforceable, and acts allegedly defying them are proper subjects of a contempt proceeding. The CA’s duty was to determine if Ricardo Jr.’s acts constituted contempt, not to defer based on the appealed validity of its own order. The case was remanded to the CA to conduct the required hearing on the indirect contempt charge.