G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952
PEDRO GAMBOA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. JOSE TEODORO, SR., JOSE AZCONA, Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of Negros Occidental GERONIMO R. FLORES, as receiver, respondents.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 1328 of the Court of Negros Occidental, judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs on February 6, 1951. On March 10, 1951, the respondent judge appointed Geronimo R. Flores as receiver of the land in litigation. On May 31, 1951, the receiver filed a motion alleging that Pedro Gamboa, who claimed to be a lessee of the defendant Manuel Uytiepo, cut sugarcane on the land under receivership, and asked that Gamboa be summoned to explain why he should not be punished for contempt. The motion was set for hearing on June 2, 1951. On June 1, 1951, Gamboa filed an urgent petition for postponement due to a prior commitment. On June 2, 1951, the respondent judge, considering Gamboa’s non-appearance as contempt, issued an order for his arrest. On June 7, 1951, Gamboa, through Judge Eduardo Enriquez (in the absence of Judge Teodoro), was allowed to post a bond for temporary liberty. On June 12, 1951, the respondent judge issued another order requiring Gamboa to appear on June 16, 1951, to show cause. After a hearing on June 16, the court, rejecting Gamboa’s explanations, found him guilty of contempt and, in an order dated June 25, 1951, sentenced him to pay a fine of P200 within 24 hours and directed him to segregate and deliver 60% of 800 piculs of sugar to the receiver. Gamboa filed a notice of appeal from this order on June 27, 1951. On June 28, 1951, the receiver filed an urgent motion alleging non-compliance. On June 30, 1951, the respondent judge ordered Gamboa to appear on July 3, 1951, to explain why he should not be disciplined again for contempt. On July 3, 1951, Gamboa appeared and reasoned that he thought he was excused from complying due to his appeal and that he could not deliver the sugar as it was mortgaged to the Central Azucarera del Danao. The judge then issued two orders: one allowing Gamboa to appeal only from the portion sentencing him to pay a fine, and another committing him to jail until he complied with the order to segregate and deliver the sugar. Gamboa then instituted these proceedings for certiorari with injunction and habeas corpus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion in immediately punishing Pedro Gamboa for contempt for non-compliance with the order of June 25, 1951, without giving him a reasonable opportunity to comply after denying his appeal from that portion of the order.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the two orders of July 3, 1951. The Court held that even assuming the portion of the order requiring delivery of sugar was not appealable, the petitioner should have been given a reasonable time to comply after his appeal was denied. In sentencing Gamboa for contempt immediately upon denying his appeal, without giving him a chance to rectify his bona fide belief that he was excused from compliance due to his appeal, the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion. The power to punish for contempt is drastic and should be exercised on the preservative principle, not vindictively, and only when necessary in the interest of justice. A bona fide misunderstanding of procedural rules should not immediately trigger contempt proceedings. The injunction previously issued was made permanent. Costs were assessed against respondent Geronimo R. Flores.