G.R. No. 82216 July 2, 1990
DOLORES DE MESA ABAD and MARIETTA ESCULTERO, represented by CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES, petitioners, vs. HON. CORONA IBAY SOMERA, RTC, Presiding Judge, HONORIA EMPAYNADO and ATTY. AMADOR E. SAGALONGOS, respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad, who died in 1971. He was survived by his common-law wife, Honoria Empaynado, three acknowledged natural children, and collateral relatives, including his sister Dolores de Mesa Abad. In 1972, Dolores and other collaterals filed a petition for settlement, initially listing certain properties as belonging to Ricardo’s estate. They later amended this petition to claim these same properties actually belonged to their deceased mother, Lucila de Mesa, and were merely administered by Ricardo. Based on ex-parte evidence, the intestate court appointed an administrator from among the collaterals. Honoria Empaynado and the children later discovered the proceedings and intervened.
In a prior related case (G.R. No. L-42225), the Supreme Court gave due course to the petitioners’ appeal concerning orders from the intestate proceedings that declared private respondents as heirs and annulled certain documents. Subsequently, in a separate civil case for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. R-82-5879), respondent Judge Corona Ibay Somera rendered a decision restoring possession of a parcel of land from defendant Marietta Escultero to the estate represented by Honoria Empaynado. The petitioners in this case filed a petition for contempt against Judge Somera, Honoria Empaynado, and her counsel, Atty. Amador Sagalongos.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt of court for the decision rendered in Civil Case No. R-82-5879, allegedly in defiance of the Supreme Court’s resolution in G.R. No. L-42225.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for contempt, finding no merit. The legal logic is anchored on the nature and requisites of contempt powers. Contempt of court involves conduct that opposes the court’s authority, justice, and dignity, tending to bring the administration of law into disrepute or impede justice. However, this power is to be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle and only when necessary for justice. A person cannot be punished for contempt unless the act forbidden or required is clearly and exactly defined, leaving no reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the decision in G.R. No. L-42225 merely gave due course to an appeal regarding heirship and annulment of documents in the intestate proceedings. In contrast, Judge Somera’s decision in the civil case was a separate action for recovery of possession, which merely restored possession of a property from a defendant (Marietta Escultero) who had no successional interest in Ricardo Abad’s estate. This decision on possession did not definitively rule on ownership or heirship in a manner that would defy or interfere with the pending appeal in the Supreme Court. Therefore, there was no clear and contumacious refusal to obey a specific order or resolution from the Court that would warrant a finding of contempt against any of the respondents. The acts complained of did not meet the stringent standard required for contempt proceedings.