GR 44983; (March, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44983 ; March 31, 1936
THE PHILIPPINE RAILWAY CO., petitioner, vs. GERONIMO PAREDES, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, and PANAY AUTOBUS CO., respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Railway Co. obtained a permanent injunction against Panay Autobus Co., prohibiting it from transporting passengers for less than one centavo per kilometer without authorization from the Public Service Commission. Alleging that Panay Autobus Co. violated this injunction, Philippine Railway Co. filed a motion to punish it for contempt. The trial court, through Judge Geronimo Paredes, absolved Panay Autobus Co. of contempt. Philippine Railway Co. moved for a new trial, which was denied. When Philippine Railway Co. attempted to appeal by filing a bill of exceptions, the trial judge disapproved it and dismissed the appeal, ruling that under the Code of Civil Procedure, only a defendant convicted of contempt may appeal, not a complainant from an acquittal.
ISSUE
Whether the alleged contempt is civil or criminal in nature, which determines the right of the complainant (Philippine Railway Co.) to appeal from the judgment of acquittal.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The disobedience to an injunction that forbids an act (here, charging unauthorized low fares) injurious to another party constitutes criminal contempt. This is because the order is prohibitory and its violation is punished to vindicate the court’s authority and dignity, not merely to coerce compliance for the benefit of the opposing party. Since the contempt is criminal in nature and the respondent Panay Autobus Co. was acquitted, the complainant cannot appeal. Allowing an appeal would place the accused in double jeopardy for the same offense, in violation of constitutional principles.
AI Generated by Armztrong.