G.R. No. L-10093 and L-10356; April 30, 1957
CARLOS J. TORRES, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., ET ALS., respondents.

FACTS

These are two consolidated petitions arising from Civil Case No. 3173 of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, an action for support filed by three minor children against petitioner Carlos J. Torres as their alleged illegitimate father. On October 28, 1955, the court rendered a decision declaring Torres the father and ordering him to give each child a monthly support of P100, to be deposited with the clerk of court on the first of each month, notwithstanding any appeal. A special order for execution was issued on November 14, 1955, due to the minors’ urgent need. Torres failed to make the required deposits.
In G.R. No. L-10356, Torres challenges an order dated January 24, 1956, which declared him guilty of contempt and ordered his incarceration for failing to deposit the support for January 1956. He had previously been convicted of contempt on December 17, 1955, for failing to deposit the support for December 1955. Torres contends this constitutes double jeopardy and a denial of due process.
In G.R. No. L-10093, Torres challenges an order and warrant for his arrest issued on December 17, 1955, for direct contempt. The respondents’ answer alleges that on that date, shortly after his first contempt conviction was dictated in open court, Torres waited at the head of the stairs near the courtroom and treacherously assaulted the plaintiffs’ counsel, Atty. Melanio O. Lalisan. This caused a commotion that interrupted the court session. The respondent judge, persuaded that Torres committed direct contempt, ordered his arrest. After a hearing where evidence was presented, the court found Torres guilty of direct contempt.

ISSUE

1. In G.R. No. L-10356: Whether the order convicting Torres of contempt for failing to deposit the January 1956 support is valid, considering his prior conviction for failing to deposit the December 1955 support, and whether it was issued with due process.
2. In G.R. No. L-10093: Whether the order for Torres’s arrest and his conviction for direct contempt, based on his assault on counsel near the courtroom which interrupted court proceedings, are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied both petitions.
Regarding G.R. No. L-10356:
1. The order is not a second punishment for the same offense. The court order required a deposit on the first day of each month. Each failure to deposit for a specific month constitutes a separate violation. The previous conviction was for the December 1955 failure; the current conviction was for the January 1956 failure.
2. The order for incarceration was proper under Section 6 of Rule 63, which allows for a penalty for contempt when a defendant in a support action has the means to pay but refuses. The court found Torres had adequate means.
3. Due process was observed. The motion for contempt was supported by an affidavit from the guardian ad litem, which was uncontradicted. The parties were heard in argument, and a reply was filed before the case was submitted for decision.
4. The denial of a bond for temporary release was proper, as allowing it would postpone compliance with a peremptory support order essential for the minors’ survival.
Regarding G.R. No. L-10093:
The respondent judge acted in accordance with Section 1 of Rule 64. Torres’s misbehavior—assaulting counsel within the vicinity of the court, thereby interrupting the administration of justice—constituted direct contempt. The court summarily adjudged him guilty after a hearing where evidence was presented, including testimony from Attys. Lalisan and Nolan, which Torres’s counsel waived the right to cross-examine. The punishment imposed (fine or imprisonment) was within the court’s authority under the rule.
Costs in both cases were assessed against the petitioner.