496 Phil. 421
CORONA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, let a writ of execution issue as follows:Unfortunately, however, the writ of execution was not enforced due to the resistance of herein petitioners. To block the execution, petitioners filed before the CA a petition for certiorari, docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 59736, questioning the order of execution, among others. The petition was dismissed outright on July 26, 2000. Petitioners then elevated the case to us. On February 23, 2004, a decision was promulgated by the Third Division of this Court:[4]SO ORDERED.[3]
- Confirming the nullity of the sale of the 2,029 Philinterlife shares in the name of the Estate of Dr. Juvencio Ortañez to Filipino Loan Assistance Group (FLAG);
- Commanding the President and the Corporate Secretary of Philinterlife to reinstate in the stock and transfer book of Philinterlife the 2,029 Philinterlife shares of stock in the name of the Estate of Dr. Juvencio P. Ortañez as the owner thereof without prejudice to other claims for violation of pre-emptive rights pertaining to the said 2,029 Philinterlife shares;
- Directing the President and the Corporate Secretary of Philinterlife to issue stock certificates of Philinterlife for 2,029 shares in the name of the Estate of Dr. Juvencio P. Ortañez as the owner thereof without prejudice to other claims for violation of pre-emptive rights pertaining to the said 2,029 Philinterlife shares; and
- Confirming that only the Special Administratrix, Ma. Divina Ortañez-Enderes, has the power to exercise all the rights appurtenant to the said shares, including the right to vote and to receive dividends;
- Directing Philinterlife and/or any other person or persons claiming to represent it or otherwise, to acknowledge and allow the said Special Administratrix to exercise all the aforesaid rights on the said shares and to refrain from resorting to any action which may tend (to) directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or bar the free exercise thereof under pain of contempt.
- The President, Corporate Secretary, any responsible officer/s of Philinterlife, or any other person or persons claiming to represent it or otherwise, are hereby directed to comply with this Order within three (3) days from receipt hereof under pain of contempt.
- The Deputy Sheriffs Adenauer Rivera and Pedro Borja are hereby directed to implement the writ of execution with dispatch to forestall any/or further damage to the Estate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 59736 dated July 26, 2000, dismissing petitioners’ petition for certiorari and affirming the July 6, 2000 order of the trial court which ordered the execution of its (trial court’s) August 11 and 29, 1997 orders, is hereby AFFIRMED.On April 27, 2004, petitioners filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and referral of this case to the en banc allegedly in view of the conflicting rulings of two divisions of the Court. In a resolution dated May 26, 2004, the Court denied the motion for lack of merit:
SO ORDERED.[5]
The Court deliberated on the petitioners’ omnibus motion for reconsideration of the decision of February 23, 2004 which denied the petition for review on certiorari. It appears to the Court that the motion merely reiterates the same arguments earlier raised and does not present any substantial reason not previously invoked nor any matter not already considered and passed upon by the Court.Thus on July 9, 2004, the February 23, 2004 decision became final and executory, and was recorded in the book of entries of judgments. On October 1, 2004, an alias writ of execution was issued by the intestate court (the court of origin). In said writ, the deputy sheriffs were ordered to enforce the August 11 and 29, 1997 and July 6, 2000 orders of the intestate court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL.[6]
SEC. 5. Where charge to be filed. — Where the charge for indirect contempt has been committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or against an officer appointed by it, the charge may be filed with such court. xxxHence, the charge for indirect contempt for disobedience to our February 23, 2004 decision was correctly brought to us. As we explained in the case of Igot v. Court of Appeals:
In whatever context it may arise, contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do an act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. As a matter of practical judicial administration, jurisdiction has been felt to properly rest in only one tribunal at a time with respect to a given controversy. Only the court which rendered the order commanding the doing of a certain act is vested with the right to determine whether or not the order has been complied with, or whether a sufficient reason has been given for noncompliance, and, therefore, whether a contempt has been committed. It is a well-established rule that the power to determine the existence of contempt of court rests exclusively with the court contemned. No court is authorized to punish a contempt against another.We now proceed to the merits of the motion to cite for indirect contempt and for imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The rationale that is usually advanced for the general rule ... is that, contempt proceedings are sui generis and are triable only by the court against whose authority the contempts are charged; the power to punish for contempt exists for the purpose of enabling a court to compel due decorum and respect in its presence and due obedience to its judgments, orders and processes and in order that a court may compel obedience to its orders, it must have the right to inquire whether there has been any disobedience thereof, for to submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency.[13]
Clearly, petitioners’ defiant non-compliance with these directives, as proved by the sheriff’s report dated October 13, 2004, constituted indirect contempt. The pertinent portion of this report stated:xxx xxx xxx SO ORDERED. [15] (Emphasis supplied)
- Directing Philinterlife and/or any other person or persons claiming to represent it or otherwise, to acknowledge and allow the said Special Administratrix to exercise all the aforesaid rights on the said shares and to refrain from resorting to any action which may tend (to) directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or bar the free exercise thereof under pain of contempt.
- The President, Corporate Secretary, any responsible officer/s of Philinterlife, or any other person or persons claiming to represent it or otherwise, are hereby directed to comply with this Order within three (3) days from receipt hereof under pain of contempt.
- The Deputy Sheriffs Adenauer Rivera and Pedro Borja are hereby directed to implement the writ of execution with dispatch to forestall any/or further damage to the Estate.
That on October 12, 2004, when Sheriff Borja went to the Philenterlife (sic) Office to check whether there was already compliance with the Alias Writ of Execution, one of their staff told Sheriff Borja that Mr. Jose Lee wanted to talk with Sheriff Borja over the Telephone. In their telephone conversation, Mr. Jose Lee told Sheriff Borja that he had already consulted his lawyer regarding the matter.Petitioners’ act of filing their motion to suspend execution/period of compliance by reason of supervening events also showed their continuing, stubborn resistance to this Court’s judgment. Indeed, one of the exceptions to the principle of immutability of final judgments is the existence of supervening events. Supervening events refer to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and executory or to new circumstances which develop after the judgment has acquired finality.[17]
WHEREFORE, we respectfully submit this report to the Honorable Court with the information that up to this writing, Philenterlife (sic) has not submitted their compliance to the Sheriff or to the Court.[16]
(1) reinstate the shares in the name of the estate in the stock and transfer book;The first two directives were undoubtedly covered by the duties and functions of the corporate secretary and president of a corporation. The next two ordered them not to resist the writ and the last directive provided a period for their compliance. Given the foregoing, there was never any need to clarify the procedure for the implementation of the writ.
(2) issue stock certificates in the name of the estate;
(3) acknowledge and allow the special administratrix to exercise all the rights appurtenant to the shares;
(4) refrain from resorting to any action which may tend to directly or indirectly impede, obstruct or bar the free exercise of these rights and
(5) comply with the order within three days from receipt.
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:In the recent case of Heirs of Trinidad de Leon vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, we explained the concept of contempt of court:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order or judgment of a court xxx
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt xxx
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
xxx xxx xxx
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation (12 Am. Jur. 389, cited in 14 SCRA 813).Petitioners’ disobedience to this Court’s judgment is an affront to the Court and the dignity with which it is clothed. Their attempt to raise issues already laid to rest by a final and executory judgment of no less than the highest tribunal of the land constitutes a disrespectful and insolent defiance of the authority of this Court and impedes the speedy administration of justice.[25] As mentioned in the beginning of this Resolution, this controversy has been pending for 25 long years already. Apparently, petitioners want to prolong it to eternity.
Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice (17 C.J.S. 4).
This Court has thus repeatedly declared that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271; In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944; Commissioner of Immigration vs. Cloribel, 20 SCRA 1241; Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1).[24]
Well-settled is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.This case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions. Moreover, the immutability of the February 23, 2004 decision is all the more emphasized in this case since it is this Court, the highest Court of the land and final arbiter of all legal controversies, that promulgated it. Thus, petitioners are bound by the finality of our decision and cannot, under the guise of a phony motion to suspend execution/period of compliance by reason of supervening events, reopen a case already decided with finality. Nor should they be permitted to litigate anew questions or issues already laid to rest.
The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result and must frown upon any attempt to prolong the controversies.
The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. [26]
… Considerable time has already elapsed and, to serve the ends of justice, it is time that [the] controversy is finally laid to rest. “Sound practice seeks to accommodate the theory which avoids waste of time, effort and expense, both to the parties and the government, not to speak of delay in the disposal of the case. A marked characteristic of our judicial set-up is that where the dictates of justice so demand ... the Supreme Court should act, and act with finality.” In this case, the dictates of justice do demand that this Court act, and act with finality.[27]This Court is becoming impatient with the devious tricks and maneuvers of petitioners.
Sec. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt. – If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or both. xxxPetitioners Jose C. Lee and Alma Aggabao, for their defiance and resistance to the October 1, 2004 alias writ of execution enforcing this Court’s February 23, 2004 decision resulting in the frustration of its execution are hereby adjudged guilty of indirect contempt.