G.R. No. L-25091 November 29, 1968
NILDA SURA, in her behalf and in behalf of her minor child VICENTE MARTIN, JR., plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICENTE SILVESTRE MARTIN, SR., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 5580 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, a judgment was rendered on June 20, 1961, amended on July 15, 1961, ordering the defendant, Vicente Silvestre Martin, Sr., to: (a) recognize the plaintiff Vicente Martin, Jr. as his natural child; (b) pay Vicente Martin, Jr. past-due support at the rate of P100.00 monthly from December 10, 1959; (c) pay a monthly pension of P100.00 until the child reaches majority age; and (d) pay attorney’s fees of P1,000.00. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on January 30, 1964. On May 9, 1964, the trial court issued a writ of execution. The Provincial Sheriff of Negros Oriental served the writ but returned it unsatisfied, with a return dated September 21, 1964, stating the judgment debtor was jobless, residing with his widowed mother, had no leviable property, was supported by his mother, and attached a certificate of insolvency. On October 6, 1964, plaintiff’s counsel prayed that the defendant be adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to satisfy the writ. The court, on November 28, 1964, granted the defendant a 30-day period to comply. Upon defendant’s failure, the court issued orders on January 9, 1965, for his arrest, and on February 1, 1965, for his confinement in provincial jail until he complies with the decision, setting an appeal bond of P7,000.00. The defendant appealed these orders.

ISSUE

Whether the orders for the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant for contempt, for failure to satisfy a money judgment for support, are legal.

RULING

No, the orders are illegal and are hereby reversed. The Court held:
1. The judgment ordering payment of past and future support was a final disposition declaratory of the defendant’s obligation. The writ of execution issued thereon was a direct order to the sheriff, not to the judgment debtor. Therefore, the judgment debtor could not have committed disobedience to the writ itself.
2. The sheriff’s return showed the judgment debtor was insolvent. The orders, in effect, authorized imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution.
3. Disobedience to a judgment considered as indirect contempt under the Rules of Court does not refer to a final money judgment but to a “special judgment” which requires the performance of an act other than the payment of money or the delivery of property. A money judgment should be enforced by ordinary execution proceedings, not by contempt.