G.R. No. 48213 ; February 19, 1943
JUAN S. RUSTIA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On February 2, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in Civil Case No. 6474, appointed a receiver and issued a preliminary writ of injunction. The injunction directed the defendants (tenants of plaintiff Roman Santos), “sus abogados, agentes y demas mandatarios” to refrain from taking possession of the “Hacienda de Candaba,” from seizing the harvested and to-be-harvested palay therein, and from threshing and transporting it. In defiance of this order, petitioner Juan S. Rustia, an attorney for the defendants, assembled the defendants on February 15, 1939, at barrio Bahay-Pari. He incited them to proceed with threshing and harvesting the palay against the receiver’s opposition, making them believe the court order was null and void. The following day, he wrote to the head of an association he organized, advising that the tenants could proceed with threshing after notifying the plaintiff or receiver. Convinced by Rustia’s representations, the defendants hired threshers and harvested the palay, openly defying the receiver. Provincial Commander Cruz and Provincial Fiscal De Jesus ordered the defendants to cease harvesting. Rustia then petitioned the court to modify the injunction to allow harvesting with delivery of one-half of the palay to the plaintiff. This petition was denied. On February 25, 1939, the court instead issued an order authorizing the receiver to liquidate the already harvested palay, delivering a portion to the defendants under specified conditions.
Based on these incidents, the Provincial Fiscal charged Rustia with criminal contempt for advising and abetting his clients to violate the writ of injunction. After attempts to postpone trial and an unfulfilled intention to challenge the presiding judge’s competency, the court found Rustia guilty of contempt and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment. Rustia appealed to the Court of Appeals. During the appeal, he filed various motions, including a request to attach a purported written challenge against the trial judge to the record (which respondent opposed with sworn statements from court officials denying its filing), petitions to annul the proceedings alleging falsification of the record, evidence, stenographic notes, and decision, and a motion for new trial seeking to introduce testimony or a report from Lieutenant Cruz about the February 15 incident. The Court of Appeals denied all motions and affirmed the lower court’s judgment on December 19, 1940.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in relying on ex-parte sworn statements to find that no written challenge against the trial judge was filed.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (testimony/report of Lieutenant Cruz).
3. Whether the injunction contravened Act No. 4054 (division of shares) and Act No. 190 , Section 452 (exemption from attachment).
4. Whether contempt could be committed after the February 2, 1939, order was allegedly superseded by the February 25, 1939, order.
5. Whether the Provincial Fiscal had authority to institute contempt proceedings arising from a civil case.

RULING

1. No error in relying on sworn statements. The appellate Court had authority to rely on competent evidence, such as affidavits from court officials, to resolve the collateral issue of whether the challenge was filed. The Court of Appeals’ factual finding that no challenge was filed is conclusive.
2. No error in denying the motion for new trial. The Supreme Court lacks power to review this factual question. Furthermore, the alleged newly discovered evidence (Lieutenant Cruz’s testimony/report) would not alter the case’s outcome, as it would only confirm Rustia advised his clients to disobey the court order.
3. No contravention of law. The receivership was not a final disposition but a mode of securing custody of the harvest pending final determination of the parties’ rights. Possession by the receiver is possession by the Court and is not adverse to either party.
4. Contempt was committed. The order of February 25, 1939, merely amended the February 2 order regarding liquidation of already harvested palay; it did not supersede the injunction against threshing and transporting. That part of the injunction still subsisted, and Rustia’s advice to proceed with threshing violated it.
5. The Provincial Fiscal had authority. Rustia’s advice to violate the injunction constituted a direct challenge to the court’s authority, making the contempt criminal in character. Proceedings for punishment of such contempt are criminal in nature, and the provincial fiscal has unquestionable authority to institute them.
DISPOSITIVE MODIFICATION:
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with the modification that, considering Rustia was actuated by a mistaken belief (though unjustified) that the order was null and void, a fine instead of imprisonment is sufficient. Petitioner is sentenced to pay a P200 fine with subsidiary imprisonment according to law in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.