G.R. No. L-38695 July 1, 1978
Eugenio Suria, petitioner, vs. Hon. Judge Filemon O. Juntereal, Presiding Judge of Branch V, Court of First Instance of Quezon, Roque Calvario, and Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eugenio Suria was the defendant in a civil case before respondent Judge Filemon O. Juntereal. Due to the repeated absences of his counsel, Atty. Ofelia Garcia, from scheduled hearings, the respondent judge issued two orders requiring Suria to reimburse private respondent Roque Calvario for expenses incurred in attending the cancelled hearings. Subsequently, without any formal written charge or prior hearing, the respondent judge issued two separate orders declaring Suria in contempt of court for allegedly contumaciously failing to report for a conference and defiantly refusing to comply with the reimbursement orders. The judge ordered Suria’s arrest. Suria filed this certiorari petition, contending the contempt orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion for violating procedural due process.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders declaring petitioner in contempt of court without a prior written charge and an opportunity to be heard.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court nullified the contempt orders for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is firmly rooted in the indispensable requirement of procedural due process in contempt proceedings. Under Section 3, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court, for acts constituting indirect contempt—such as disobedience of a lawful court order—the accused must be afforded an opportunity to be heard after a charge in writing is filed. The respondent judge’s orders of April 29 and May 7, 1974, found Suria in contempt and ordered his arrest without complying with this fundamental procedure. The Court emphasized that contempt power is potent and its exercise demands strict adherence to due process safeguards to prevent arbitrariness. While the Court recognized the judge’s frustration with postponements and found the reimbursement orders equitable and valid due to Suria’s prior agreement, the summary contempt declarations crossed a constitutional line. The subsequent attempt by the judge to rectify the error by issuing an order charging indirect contempt and setting a hearing did not cure the defect, as it expressly referenced the still-uncured void orders. Thus, certiorari lies to annul orders issued in violation of basic constitutional rights.