G.R. No. 240984 & G.R. No. 241120, September 27, 2021
Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. and Michael L. Romero, Petitioners, vs. La Filipina Uygongco Corp. and Philippine Foremost Milling Corp., Respondents.

FACTS

On November 19, 2004, Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. (HCPTI) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with La Filipina Uygongco Corp. (LFUC) and Philippine Foremost Milling Corp. (PFMC), granting the latter priority berthing rights for their vessels. In 2008, a dispute arose when HCPTI demanded payment for alleged accountabilities. LFUC and PFMC filed a complaint for breach of contract and secured a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) from the RTC of Manila, Branch 24 on September 25, 2008, enjoining HCPTI from preventing their access to port facilities. From March to June 2009, multiple domestic vessels chartered by LFUC and PFMC were allegedly denied access or delayed in using their assigned berthing area and facilities, prompting them to file a Petition for Indirect Contempt against HCPTI and its officers (including Michael L. Romero) for violating the WPI. The RTC Branch 42 dismissed the contempt petition, finding that LFUC and PFMC failed to comply with the MOA’s requirements, specifically the submission of a written Final Advice of Arrival (FAA) and indicating the Expected Time of Arrival (ETA) for their vessels. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding petitioners liable for indirect contempt and characterizing the proceeding as civil in nature. Petitioners sought review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding petitioners liable for indirect contempt.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petition for indirect contempt civil in nature.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court held that petitioners were not liable for indirect contempt. The priority berthing right under the MOA was conditional upon: (a) the locator (respondents) serving a written Final Advice of Arrival (FAA) upon HCPTI, and (b) the berthing area being vacant. The evidence established that respondents failed to submit the required written FAA and, in some instances, failed to indicate their vessels’ ETA in their berth applications. This failure prevented HCPTI from properly scheduling and allocating the berthing area. Consequently, petitioners’ failure to provide immediate priority berthing was due to respondents’ own non-compliance with the MOA terms and did not constitute a willful violation of the WPI.
2. The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to definitively resolve this issue, as the petition was granted on the first issue. However, the Court noted the distinction between civil contempt (to compel compliance for the benefit of a party) and criminal contempt (to punish disrespect to the court’s authority). The Court observed that the respondents’ petition primarily sought to compel obedience to the WPI for their benefit, suggesting a civil character, but ultimately did not rule on the matter since petitioners were found not liable for contempt.
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petitions, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the Regional Trial Court’s Decision dismissing the Petition for Indirect Contempt.