G.R. No. L-65831 May 20, 1987
CELSO DEFALOBOS, petitioner, vs. HON. GREGORIO U. AQUILIZAN, Regional Trial Judge of the Regional Trial Court of North Cotabato, 12th Judicial Region Branch XVI, Kabacan, North Cotabato, P/CAPT. LUIS M. GONZAGA, SR., etc., respondents.

FACTS

This petition for habeas corpus arose from Civil Case No. 191 for recovery of possession and damages filed against petitioner Celso Defalobos. On March 23, 1983, respondent Judge Gregorio U. Aquilizan issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), incorrectly labeled a writ of preliminary injunction, prohibiting Defalobos from cultivating or improving the disputed land. The judge extended this TRO on June 8, 1983, and set a hearing on the preliminary injunction for June 30, 1983. However, on June 27, 1983, without conducting any hearing, the judge issued a writ of permanent injunction with the same prohibitory terms.
Subsequently, a decision was rendered on July 20, 1983, ordering Defalobos to vacate the land. On August 22, 1983, the plaintiff verbally manifested that Defalobos refused to obey the permanent injunction. The judge ordered Defalobos to explain his refusal and, on September 5, 1983, held him in indirect contempt of court. The order committed Defalobos to imprisonment and imposed a fine of P1,000.00, prompting this habeas corpus petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge correctly held the petitioner guilty of indirect contempt of court.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the contempt order. The legal logic is threefold. First, the extended TRO was void. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 224, a TRO automatically expires on the 20th day by operation of law. The extension beyond this period was invalid, leaving no effective TRO for Defalobos to disobey. Second, the permanent injunction was void for having been issued without a hearing, violating Defalobos’s fundamental right to due process. A court cannot issue an injunction, especially a permanent one, without affording the party an opportunity to be heard. Since the injunction was void ab initio, disobedience to it could not constitute contempt.
Third, even assuming a valid judgment, the mere refusal of a defeated party to surrender property to the winning party does not, by itself, constitute contempt. The proper remedy for the prevailing party is to seek execution of the judgment through the sheriff. The judge should have directed the sheriff to enforce the decision instead of resorting to contempt powers. The Court noted that since Judge Aquilizan had been phased out of the judiciary, further administrative inquiry was unnecessary, but ordered this decision entered into his personnel records. The Court amended its prior resolution to order the petitioner’s permanent release.