Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 162299 March 26, 2014
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., DEAN ELIA!ET" #E$DACANAY, ATTY. ARNUL#O SORIANO, DR.
RO!ERTO LEGASPI, DR. ANASTACIO A%UINO, LOURDES &ACINTO, DR. &O"N ANT"ONY
DOMANTA Y, a'( NORA PO NOC, Petitioners,
vs.
!A!Y NELLIE M. OLAIRE, S"IERYL A. RE!UCAL, &ENNY RIA A. !ANTA, !RANDO !. !ADECAO,
a'( COURT O# APPEALS, Respondents.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
G.R. No. 1)4)*+
!A!Y NELLIE M. OLAIRE, S"I ERYL A. RE!UCAL, &ENNY RIA A. !ANTA, a'( !RANDO !.
!ADECAO,Petitioners,
vs.
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., DEAN ELIA!ET" #E$DACANA Y, ATTY. ARNUL#O SORIANO, DR.
RO!ERTO LEGASPI, DR. ANASTACIO A%UINO, LOURDES &ACINTO, DR. &O"N ANT"ONY
DOMANTAY, a'( NORA PONOC, Respondents.
D " # I S I O N
MENDOA, J.:
$or assess%ent and disposition before the #ourt are the follo&in' consolidated petitions for revie& on
certiorari under Rule () of the Rules of #ourt.
In *.R. No. +,--.., Saint /ouis 0niversit1 2S/03, alon' &ith co!petitioners Dean "li4abeth $e!Dacana1
2Dean Dacana13, Rev. $ather Paul Van Pari5s, Dr. Robert /e'aspi, Dr. 6nastacio 67uino, /ourdes 8acinto,
Dr. 8ohn 6nthon1 Do%anta1, and Nora Ponoc, are challen'in' the Resolutions, dated Nove%ber +9,
-::;+ and $ebruar1 +:, -::(,- of the #ourt of 6ppeals 2#63, in #6!*.R. No. SP. <9+-<, dis%issin' S/0=s
petition for certiorari under Rule ,) &hich sou'ht the reversal of the orders of the Re'ional Trial #ourt,
>ranch +, >a'uio #it1 2RT#3, to &it? +@ Order,; dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, directin' the petitioners to sho& cause
&h1 the1 should not be held in conte%pt of courtA -@ Order,( dated 8une ,, -::;,) directin' co%pliance &ith
the 8ul1 +,, -::; RT# decisionA ;@ Brit of "ecution,, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, si'ned b1 the >ranch #lerC of
#ourt, &ithout an1 %otion for its issuanceA and (@ Order,< dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, si'ned b1 8ud'e 61son
directin' the issuance of a &rit of eecution pursuant to Section (, Rule ;. of the Rules of #ourt, for the
reason that no %otion for reconsideration &as filed before the RT#.
In *.R. No. +<(<)9, >ab1 Nellie Olaire4, Shier1l 6. Rebucal, 8enn1 Ri4a 6. >anta, and >rando >. >adecao
2Olaire4 'roup3 are assailin' the 6pril <, -::, Decision9 and the Septe%ber ++, -::, Resolution. of the
#6, in #6!*.R. #R No. -<9,+, settin' aside the 8ul1 -;, -::; RT# Order and dis%issin' the conte%pt
char'es a'ainst S/0.
The $actual 6ntecedents
S/0 is an educational institution based in >a'uio #it1 offerin' various diplo%a courses in different fields of
stud1.
>ab1 Nellie M. Olaire4 2Olaire43, Shier1l 6. Rebucal 2Rebucal3, 8enn1 Ri4a >anta 2>anta3, and >rando
>adecao 2>adecao3, &ere fourth!1ear 'raduatin' students of S/0=s #olle'e of Medicine >atch -::-. On
March +9, -::-, Olaire4 and Rebucal filed their #o%plaint for Mandator1 In5unction &ith Da%a'es and
Preli%inar1 In5unction and Te%porar1 Restrainin' Order before the RT#, a'ainst Dean Dacana1, a certain
6pril /il1 >an'aoet and other unidentified individuals, referred to as D8ohn Does,D challen'in' the
i%ple%entation of the revised version of the #o%prehensive Oral and Britten "a%ination 2#OB"3, a
prere7uisite for 'raduation fro% S/0=s %edicine course.+: The case &as docCeted as #ivil #ase No. )+.+!
R. In their co%plaint, Olaire4 and Rebucal alle'ed that as a condition for 'raduation, S/0 re7uired their
students to co%plete and pass the #OB" and, and if a student &ould fail, the student concerned %a1 taCe
another re%edial ea%.++ Olaire4 alle'ed that the then ne&l1 desi'nated Dean Dacana1, suddenl1 devised
and revised the #OB" b1 further sub5ectin' the 'raduatin' students to additional re7uire%ents such as
co%pletin' Orals + and Orals -, alon' &ith added %onths of %edical clerCship 2Revised
#OB"3.+- #ontendin' that the i%ple%entation of the Revised #OB" &as contrar1 to S/0=s Student
HandbooC and &ould arbitraril1 dela1 their 'raduation, the1 sou'ht in5unctive relief fro% the trial court.
Thereafter, 8enn1 Ri4a >anta and >rando >. >adecao intervened in the sa%e proceedin's.+;
In the %eanti%e, on 6pril -, -::-, after sub%ittin' their applications for 'raduation &ith &aiver, the Olaire4
'roup &as allo&ed to attend the 'raduation rites.
6fter a fe& da1s or on 6pril ., -::-, the RT# 'ranted the Brit of Preli%inar1 In5unction preventin' S/0 and
Dean Dacana1 fro% enforcin' the Revised #OB".+(
In their $ourth 6%ended #o%plaint,+) the Olaire4 'roup disclosed that the1 had co%pleted, passed and
received their final 'rades in all the sub5ects re7uired for the confer%ent of the de'ree of doctor of
%edicine. The1 &ere allo&ed to %arch and attend the co%%ence%ent eercises. The1 received the
s1%bolic diplo%a and &ere eventuall1 conferred &ith the de'ree, Doctor of Medicine. Si%ilarl1, the
6ssociation of Philippine Medical #olle'es per%itted the% to attend the t&elve!%onth post 'raduate
internship at the >a'uio *eneral Hospital. Subse7uentl1, the1 obtained clearances fro% various
depart%ents ecept for t&o depart%ents, the 6d%inistrative Secretar1 and the Trainin' Officer of S/0. Still,
Dean Dacana1 refused to issue certifications in their favor. To the%, it &as unacceptable.
Thus, the Olaire4 'roup pra1ed that Dean Dacana1 and S/0 be ordered to for&ard their final 'rades 2S/0
$or% No. (3 to the Re'istrar=s Office for recordin'A to issue their clearances, certificate of 'raduation,
diplo%a and include the% in the S/0 Re'istr1 of *raduatesA to cease and desist fro% eertin' pressure on
the 6ssociation of Philippine Medical #olle'es 26PM#3 to recall their certifications 'rantin' their internship
and on >a'uio *eneral Hospital to pull the% out fro% their internshipA to declare the Revised #OB" as
%oot and acade%ic insofar as the1 &ere concernedA and to pa1 the% P-,:::,:::.:: as %oral
da%a'es, P+::,:::.:: as no%inal da%a'es,P-):,:::.:: as ee%plar1 da%a'es and P):,:::.:: as
attorne1=s fees.+,
Decision of the RT#
On 8ul1 +,, -::;, the RT# rendered a decision declarin' the Olaire4 'roup as 'raduates of the #olle'e of
Medicine, S/0.+< It eplained that the Revised #OB" beca%e %oot and acade%ic for the follo&in'
reasons? +@ the Re'ional Director of the #o%%ission on Hi'her "ducation 2#H"D3 issued a certification
that the Olaire4 'roup had co%pleted all the re7uire%ents for the De'ree of Medicine, not&ithstandin' the
'rant of autono%1 to S/0 b1 the #H"DA and -@ S/0 allo&ed the Olaire4 'roup to participate in the
'raduation rites. The decretal portion of the RT# decision reads?
BH"R"$OR", pre%ises considered, 8ud'%ent is hereb1 rendered in favor of plaintiffs >ab1 Nellie Olaire4
and Shier1l Rebucal and intervenors 8enn1 Ri44a >anta and >rando >adecao and a'ainst the defendants,
as follo&s?
+. Orderin' the 6d%inistrative Secretar1, Trainin' Officer, Hospital 6d%inistrator and Medical
Director of Saint /ouis 0niversit1 Hospital to si'n the clearance of plaintiffs and intervenors.
-. Orderin' defendants Dean "li4abeth $e Dacana1 and Saint /ouis 0niversit1 to issue the
#ertificate of *raduation to plaintiffs and intervenorsA
;. Orderin' defendant Dean Dacana1 to for&ard the $inal *rades 2S/0 $or% No. (3 of plaintiffs
and intervenors sub%itted to her office to the Office of the Re'istrar of Saint /ouis 0niversit1 for
proper recordin' in the Transcript of RecordsA
(. Orderin' defendants Dean Dacana1 and Saint /ouis 0niversit1 and all those actin' for and in
their behalf to issue the diplo%a and transcript of records of plaintiffs and intervenors and include
the% in the S/0 Re'istr1 of *raduates 2RO*3A
). Orderin' defendants Dean Dacana1 and Saint /ouis 0niversit1 and all those actin' for and in
their behalf to cease and desist per%anentl1 fro% eercisin' pressure on the 6ssociation of
Philippine Medical #olle'es 26PM#3 to recall the per%it issued b1 it to plaintiffs and intervenors for
their internship.
,. Orderin' defendants Dean Dacana1 and Saint /ouis 0niversit1 and all those actin' for and in
their behalf to cease and desist per%anentl1 fro% eertin' pressure on the >a'uio *eneral Hospital
2>*H3 to pull out plaintiffs and intervenors fro% their internship at >*H or fro% recallin' the sa%e.
<. Declarin' the plaintiffs and intervenors as havin' 'raduated &ith the De'ree of Doctor of
Medicine havin' co%pleted all the re7uire%ents leadin' to the De'ree of Doctor of Medicine as
certified to b1 the #o%%ission on Hi'her "ducation 2#H"D3 Director 8oseph de los SantosA
9. Declarin' the Revised #OB" &ith Orals + and - &ith additional t&o to four %onths of %edical
clerCship as %oot and acade%ic insofar as plaintiffs and intervenors are concerned since the1 have
alread1 'raduated &ith the De'ree of Doctor of Medicine as certified to b1 the #H"D Director
8oseph de los SantosA
.. Declarin' that the %atter of the &rit of preli%inar1 in5unction 2%andator13 pra1ed for &hich &as
a'reed upon b1 the parties to be resolved to'ether &ith the 5ud'%ent on the %erits of the case in
Evie&@ of ti%e constraints is actuall1 dee%ed resolved herein as, in effect, a final &rit of in5unction
2%andator13 is issued b1 the #ourt orderin' defendants Dean Dacana1 and the Saint /ouis
0niversit1 and all those actin' for and in their behalf to issue i%%ediatel1 the plaintiffs= and
intervenors= clearances, final 'rades, certificate of 'raduation, diplo%a and transcript of records and
include the% in their Re'istr1 of *raduates and certif1 the% as 'raduates 7ualified to taCe the
>oard ea%ination for Medicine this 6u'ust, -::;.
+:. Dis%issin' all clai%s and counterclai%s for da%a'es, actual da%a'es, %oral da%a'es,
no%inal da%a'es, ee%plar1 da%a'es and attorne1=s fees, considerin' that both the plaintiffs and
intervenors on the one hand and the defendants on the other hand acted in 'ood faith in pursuin'
and advocatin' &ith vi'or and 4eal their respective positions and &ere not in bad faith.
$urnish a cop1 of this 5ud'%ent not onl1 to the counsels of defendants but also to the defendants
the%selves, Dean "li4abeth Dacana1, Saint /ouis 0niversit1 and those actin' for and in their behalf such
as Dr. 8ohn Do%anta1, the 6d%inistrative Secretar1, Hospital 6d%inistrator, Trainin' Officer and Medical
Director of the Saint /ouis 0niversit1 Hospital of the Sacred Heart for their i%%ediate co%pliance of the
$inal Brit of In5unction 2Mandator13 issued herein.
SO ORD"R"D.+9
The net da1 or, on 8ul1 +<, -::;, the Olaire4 'roup trooped to S/0 and insisted on its i%%ediate
co%pliance &ith the RT# rulin'. 0nable to 'et a favorable repl1 fro% S/0, the Olaire4 'roup filed, on the
sa%e da1, a DVer1 0r'ent Motion to #ite Defendants in #onte%ptD settin' the hearin' of the %otion for 8ul1
+9, -::;.+. Mean&hile, S/0 filed its Notice of 6ppeal-: before the RT#.
In its Order, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, the RT# cited Section (, Rule ;. of the Rules of #ourt specif1in' that a
5ud'%ent in an action for in5unction &as i%%ediatel1 eecutor1, but reset the hearin' on the %otion to cite
S/0 in conte%pt of court to 8ul1 --, -::; to allo& co%pliance &ith a technical defect in the %otion. -+ In the
order-- read in open court, it &as %entioned that S/0 had alread1 filed a notice of appeal. The RT#,
ho&ever, stressed that its 5ud'%ent of in5unction &as i%%ediatel1 enforceable even thou'h S/0 interposed
an appeal.
On that sa%e da1, the Olaire4 'roup sub%itted their D#o%pliance,D b1 providin' the re7uired
verification.-; Thus, in another Order, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, the RT# ordered the issuance of a &rit of
eecution.-( 6fter&ards, the >ranch #lerC of #ourt issued a &rit of eecution.-)
On 8ul1 +., -::;, the RT# sheriff served S/0 &ith the said &rit of eecution.
On 8ul1 -+, -::;, S/0 %oved for the inhibition of Presidin' 8ud'e 61son,-, but its %otion &as denied in
the Order, dated 8ul1 --, -::;.-< Thereafter, the hearin' of the %otion to cite S/0 in conte%pt proceeded
on the sa%e da1 &ithout an1 participation of S/0 and its officials.
On the net da1, or on 8ul1 -;, -::;, the RT# found S/0 'uilt1 of indirect conte%pt. -9 The decretal portion
of the order reads?
BH"R"$OR", the #ourt finds defendant Dean "li4abeth Dacana1 'uilt1 of Indirect #onte%pt of #ourt
under Sections ; letter 2b3 and < of Rule <+ in relation to Section ( and ++ of Rule ;. of the Rules of #ourt
and sentences her to pa1 a $ine of Thirt1 Thousand 2P;:,:::.::3 Pesos.
/iCe&ise, the #ourt finds those actin' for and in behalf of Dean "li4abeth Dacana1, na%el1, 6d%inistrative
Secretar1 Nora Ponoc, Hospital 6d%inistrator /ourdes 8acinto, Trainin' Officer Dr. 6nastacio 67uino and
Medical Director Dr. Roberto /e'aspi, Dr. 8ohn Do%anta1 and 6ctin' President 6tt1. 6rnulfo Soriano 'uilt1
of Indirect #onte%pt of #ourt under Sections ; letter 2b3 and < of Rule <+ in relation to Sections ( and ++ of
Rule ;. of the Rules of #ourt and hereb1 sentences the% to pa1 a fine of One Thousand Pesos
2P+,:::.::3 each.
The Professional Re'ulation #o%%ission and the >oard of Medicine are liCe&ise ordered to conditionall1
allo& if feasible plaintiffs >ab1 Nellie Olaire4, Shier1l Rebucal, 8enn1 Ri44a >anta and >rando >adecao to
taCe the Medical >oard "a%ination scheduled on 6u'ust -::; until the 8ud'%ent 2Decision3 of the #ourt
dated 8ul1 +,, -::; is finall1 enforced.-.
The Petition for certiorari
Thereafter, S/0 filed a petition for certiorari under Rule ,) of the Rules of #ourt before the #6, docCeted
as #.6. *.R. SP No. <9+-<, 7uestionin' the follo&in' trial court issuances?
+. Order, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, directin' the defendants 2S/03 to sho& cause &h1 the1 should not
be cited in conte%ptA
-. Order, dated 8une ,, -::;, directin' co%pliance &ith the 8ul1 +,, -::; decision of the RT#A
;. Brit of "ecution, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, si'ned b1 the >ranch #lerC of #ourt &ithout an1 %otion
for its issuanceA and
(. Order, dated 8ul1 +9, -::;, si'ned b1 8ud'e 61son directin' the issuance of a &rit of eecution
pursuant to Section (, Rule ;. of the Rules of #ourt.
On Nove%ber +9, -::;, the #6 dis%issed S/0=s petition outri'ht for its failure to file a prior %otion for
reconsideration.;: The #6 eplained that Da special civil action for certiorari &ill not lie unless the a''rieved
part1 has no other plain, speed1 and ade7uate re%ed1 in the ordinar1 course of la&, such as a ti%el1 filed
%otion for reconsideration so as to allo& the lo&er court to correct the alle'ed error.D;+
S/0 %oved for reconsideration, but the #6 denied the sa%e in its Resolution,;- dated $ebruar1 +:, -::(.
0nsatisfied, S/0 elevated the disputed #6 resolutions before the #ourt via a petition for revie& on
certiorari under Rule (), docCeted as *.R. No. +,--...;;
The 6ppeal Proper
Mean&hile, S/0 appealed the order of the RT# findin' it 'uilt1 of indirect conte%pt before the #6, &hich
&as docCeted as #6!*.R. #R No. -<9,+.
Re'ardin' the %erits of the appeal in the indirect conte%pt case, the #6 reversed the 8ul1 -;, -::; Order
of the RT# in its 6pril <, -::, Decision.;( #itin' Rule <+ of the Rules of #ourt, the #6 opined that to co%pl1
&ith the procedural re7uire%ents of indirect conte%pt, there %ust be? 2+3 a co%plaint in &ritin' &hich %a1
either be a %otion for conte%pt filed b1 a part1 or an order issued b1 the court re7uirin' a person to appear
and eplain his conductA and, 2-3 an opportunit1 for the person char'ed to appear and eplain his
conduct.;)
The #6 observed that the second ele%ent &as lacCin' as there &as haste in the conduct of the
proceedin's and in issuin' orders &hich deprived S/0 of the opportunit1 to eplain the reason for not
co%pl1in' &ith the %andator1 in5unction. The #6 then stated that Din order for a part1 to be 'uilt1 of indirect
conte%pt, the rules re7uire that he be 'iven enou'h and reasonable opportunit1 to eplain his side a'ainst
the alluded conte%ptuous act. Deprive the part1 of such opportunit1 &ould be to deprive hi% of due
process of la&. It is in that non!observance of the constitutional ri'ht to due process that &e find the order
citin' the appellants in conte%pt to be unsustainable due to the unprocedural process and the precipitate
issuance of the conte%pt order.D;, The dispositive portion of the 6pril <, -::, #6 decision reads?
IN VI"B O$ 6// $OR"*OIN*, TH" INST6NT 6PP"6/ is hereb1 *R6NT"D, the challen'ed order dated
8ul1 -;, -::; in #ivil #ase No. )+.+!R, R"#6//"D and S"T 6SID", and a ne& one entered DISMISSIN*
the assailed conte%pt char'e a'ainst herein appellants. No pronounce%ent as to cost.
SO ORD"R"D.;<
0nperturbed, the Olaire4 'roup %oved for a reconsideration of the said rulin'. ;9 On Septe%ber ++, -::,,
the #6 denied their %otion for reconsideration.;.
Thus, the Olaire4 'roup filed a petition revie& on certiorari under Rule (), docCeted as *.R. No. +<(<)9.(:
In the Resolution of 6pril +,, -::<, the #ourt resolved to consolidate the t&o cases.(+
The Issues
*.R. No. +,--..
TH" #O0RT O$ 6PP"6/S "RR"D IN DISMISSIN* TH" P"TITION $OR #"RTIOR6RI ON TH"
*RO0ND TH6T TH" P"ND"N#F O$ 6N 6PP"6/ "G#/0D"S TH" R"M"DF O$ #"RTIOR6RI.
TH" #O0RT O$ 6PP"6/S "RR"D IN DISMISSIN* TH" P"TITION $OR #"RTIOR6RI ON TH"
*RO0ND TH6T TH" P"TITION"RS $6I/"D TO $I/" 6 MOTION $OR R"#ONSID"R6TION O$ TH"
6SS6I/"D ORD"RS O$ TH" TRI6/ #O0RT.(-
*.R. No. +<(<)9
I.
TH" HONOR6>/" #O0RT O$ 6PP"6/S $ORM"R THIRD DIVISION #OMMITT"D *R6V" 6>0S" O$
DIS#R"TION 6ND IT S"RIO0S/F "RR"D IN ITS $INDIN* TH6T TH" THR""!D6F NOTI#" R0/" B6S
VIO/6T"D, D"SPIT" TH" $6#T TH6T PRIV6T" R"SPOND"NTS 6ND TH" /"6D #O0NS"/ 6TTF.
6RN0/$O SORI6NO, IN HIS #6P6#ITF 6S TH" S/0 VI#"!PR"SID"NT $OR 6DMEI@NISTR6TION 6ND
6/SO TH"N 6#TIN* PR"SID"NT O$ TH" PRIN#IP6/ R"SPOND"NT S6INT /O0IS 0NIV"RSITF,
IN#., B"R" P"RSON6//F S"RV"D #OPI"S ON 80/F +., -::; O$ TH" NOTI#" O$ H"6RIN* S"T
ON 80/F --, -::; 6T 9?;: 6.M.
II.
TH" HONOR6>/" #O0RT O$ 6PP"6/S S"RIO0S/F "RR"D IN ITS $INDIN* TH6T TH" PRIV6T"
R"SPOND"NTS B"R" D"NI"D D0" PRO#"SS O$ /6B BH"R"IN 6//"*"D/F TH"F DB"R"
$O0ND NOT TO H6V" >""N 6$$ORD"D R"6SON6>/" OPPORT0NITF $OR TH" 6PP"//6NTS TO
6PP"6R 6ND "GP/6IN TH"IR #OND0#TDH6S 6 *RO0ND $OR R"V"RSIN* TH" ORD"R O$ TH"
R"*ION6/ TRI6/ #O0RT BHI#H $O0ND R"SPOND"NTS *0I/TF O$ #ONT"MPT.
III.
TH6T TH" HONOR6>/" #O0RT O$ 6PP"6/S S"RIO0S/F "RR"D IN ITS $INDIN* TH6T TH"
INITI6TORF P/"6DIN* #O0/D NOT >" TR"6T"D 6S 6 MOTION $OR "G"#0TION.(;
The #ourt=s Rulin'
*.R. No. +,--..
S/0 contends that the #6 erred in dis%issin' its petition for certiorari for filin' it &ithout a prior %otion for
reconsideration &hich, accordin' to it, constituted a fatal infir%it1.
The petition is bereft of %erit.
The 'eneral rule is that a %otion for reconsideration is a condition sine 7ua non for the filin' of a petition for
certiorari.(( Its purpose is to 'rant an opportunit1 for the court to correct an1 actual or perceived error
attributed to it b1 the re!ea%ination of the le'al and factual circu%stances of the case. () It is not, ho&ever,
an ironclad rule. There are reco'ni4ed eceptions such as 2a3 &here the order is a patent nullit1, as &here
the court a 7uo had no 5urisdictionA 2b3 &here the 7uestions raised in the certiorari proceedin' have been
dul1 raised and passed upon b1 the lo&er court, or are the sa%e as those raised and passed upon in the
lo&er courtA 2c3 &here there is an ur'ent necessit1 for the resolution of the 7uestion and an1 further dela1
&ould pre5udice the interests of the *overn%ent or of the petitioner or the sub5ect %atter of the action is
perishableA 2d3 &here, under the circu%stances, a %otion for reconsideration &ould be uselessA 2e3 &here
petitioner &as deprived of due process and there is etre%e ur'enc1 for reliefA 2f3 &here, in a cri%inal case,
relief fro% an order of arrest is ur'ent and the 'rantin' of such relief b1 the trial court is i%probableA 2'3
&here the proceedin's in the lo&er court are a nullit1 for lacC of due processA 2h3 &here the proceedin's
&ere e parte, or in &hich the petitioner had no opportunit1 to ob5ectA and 2i3 &here the issue raised is one
purel1 of la& or &here public interest is involved.(,
0nder the circu%stances, the #ourt is not convinced that S/0=s eplanation constitutes sufficient 'round
for the application of the eception to the rule. In the sa%e vein, petitioners %a1 not arro'ate to the%selves
the deter%ination of &hether a %otion for reconsideration is necessar1 or not.(< It should be e%phasi4ed
that procedural rules are tools desi'ned to facilitate the ad5udication of cases. #ourts and liti'ants aliCe are,
thus, en5oined to abide strictl1 b1 the rules. 6lthou'h the #ourt, in so%e cases, per%its a relaation in the
application of the rules, this &as never intended to for'e a bastion for errin' liti'ants to violate the rules &ith
i%punit1. It is true that liti'ation is not a 'a%e of technicalities, but it is e7uall1 true that ever1 case %ust be
prosecuted in accordance &ith the prescribed procedure to insure an orderl1 and speed1 ad%inistration of
5ustice.(9
In this case, a liberalit1 in the application of the rules of procedure %a1 not be invoCed if it &ill result in the
&anton disre'ard of the rules or cause needless dela1 in the ad%inistration of 5ustice. $or it is e7uall1
settled that, ecept for the %ost persuasive of reasons, strict co%pliance is en5oined to facilitate the orderl1
ad%inistration of 5ustice.(.
*.R. No. +<(<)9
The Olaire4 'roup ar'ues that the #6 erred in rulin' that S/0 and its officials &ere denied of due process
as the1 &ere not 'iven the opportunit1 to co%%ent and be heard on the conte%pt char'es a'ainst the%.):
The 'roup=s petition is bereft of %erit.
Indirect conte%pt is defined b1 and punished under Section ;, Rule <+ of the Rules of #ourt, &hich
provides?
Section ;. Indirect conte%pt to be punished after char'e and hearin'. H 6fter a char'e in &ritin' has been
filed, and an opportunit1 'iven to the respondent to co%%ent thereon &ithin such period as %a1 be fied
b1 the court and to be heard b1 hi%self or counsel, a person 'uilt1 of an1 of the follo&in' acts %a1 be
punished for indirect conte%pt?
2a3 Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the perfor%ance of his official duties or in his official
transactionsA
2b3 Disobedience of or resistance to a la&ful &rit, process, order, or 5ud'%ent of a court, includin'
the act of a person &ho, after bein' dispossessed or e5ected fro% an1 real propert1 b1 the
5ud'%ent or process of an1 court of co%petent 5urisdiction, enters or atte%pts or induces another to
enter into or upon such real propert1, or in an1 %anner disturbs the possession 'iven to the person
ad5ud'ed to be entitled theretoA
2c3 6n1 abuse of or an1 unla&ful interference &ith the processes or proceedin's of a court not
constitutin' direct conte%pt under section + of this RuleA
2d3 6n1 i%proper conduct tendin', directl1 or indirectl1, to i%pede, obstruct, or de'rade the
ad%inistration of 5usticeA
2e3 6ssu%in' to be an attorne1 or an officer of a court, and actin' as such &ithout authorit1A
2f3 $ailure to obe1 a subpoena dul1 servedA
2'3 The rescue, or atte%pted rescue, of a person or propert1 in the custod1 of an officer b1 virtue of
an order or process of a court held b1 hi%.
>ut nothin' in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court fro% issuin' process to brin' the
respondent into court, or fro% holdin' hi% in custod1 pendin' such proceedin's. 2;a3
In conte%pt, the intent 'oes to the 'rava%en of the offense.)+ Thus, the 'ood faith or lacC of it, of the
alle'ed conte%nor is considered.)- Bhere the act co%plained of is a%bi'uous or does not clearl1 sho& on
its face that it is conte%pt, and is one &hich, if the part1 is actin' in 'ood faith, is &ithin his ri'hts, the
presence or absence of a contu%acious intent is, in so%e instances, held to be deter%inative of its
character.); 6 person should not be conde%ned for conte%pt &here he contends for &hat he believes to be
ri'ht and in 'ood faith institutes proceedin's for the purpose, ho&ever erroneous %a1 be his conclusion as
to his ri'hts.)( To constitute conte%pt, the act %ust be done &ilfull1 and for an ille'iti%ate or i%proper
purpose.))
The supposed inaction of the S/0 and its officials &hen the Olaire4 'roup visited the school on 8ul1 +<,
-::; to de%and their co%pliance &ith the decision &as not borne out of a contu%acious conduct tendin',
directl1 or indirectl1, to hinder the i%ple%entation of a 5ud'%ent. 6 conduct, to be contu%acious, i%plies
&illfulness, bad faith or &ith deliberate intent to cause in5ustice, &hich is clearl1 not the case here. On the
contrar1, S/0 &as &ell &ithin its ri'hts to appeal the decision and not i%%ediatel1 heed the de%and of the
Olaire4 'roup.
Records reveal that the Olaire4 'roup violated the three!da1 notice rule on hearin' of %otions as provided
in Section (,), Rule +) of the Rules of #ourt &hen the1 scheduled the hearin' on their DVer1 0r'ent Motion
to #ite Defendants In #onte%ptD on 8ul1 +9, -::; or 5ust one da1 after the1 filed the said pleadin' on 8ul1
+<, -::;. 6s a rule, an1 %otion that does not co%pl1 &ith the re7uire%ents of Rule +) should not be
received for filin')< and, if filed, is not entitled to 5udicial co'ni4ance,)9 sub5ect onl1 to so%e eceptions,
such as &here a ri'id application of the rule &ill result in a %anifest failure or %iscarria'e of 5ustice). or if
there &as substantial co%pliance.,:
0nder the attendant circu%stances, there &as no substantial co%pliance &ith procedural due process
because althou'h the hearin' on the said %otion &as reset to 8ul1 --, -::;, the disputed &rit of eecution
&as actuall1 issued on 8ul1 +9, -::; and served on S/0 and its officials on 8ul1 +., -::; before the
rescheduled hearin' date. &hile their counsels on record received their copies on 8ul1 -+, -::;. In due
process, the para%eter re7uired is the presence of an opportunit1 to be heard, as &ell as the ti%e to stud1
the %otion and %eanin'full1 oppose or controvert the 'rounds upon &hich it is based.,+
This &as not properl1 afforded to S/0.
The po&er to declare a person in conte%pt of court and in dealin' &ith hi% accordin'l1 is an inherent
po&er lod'ed in courts of 5ustice, to be used as a %eans to protect and preserve the di'nit1 of the court,
the sole%nit1 of the proceedin's therein and the ad%inistration of 5ustice fro% callous %isbehavior,
offensive personalities and contu%acious refusal to co%pl1 &ith court orders.,- This conte%pt po&er,
plenar1 it %a1 see%, ho&ever, %ust be eercised 5udiciousl1 and sparin'l1 &ith hi'hest self!restraint &ith
the end in vie& of utili4in' the sa%e for correction and preservation of the di'nit1 of the court, not for
retribution or vindication.,; It should not be availed of unless necessar1 in the interest of 5ustice.,(
Thus, the #ourt finds no co'ent reason to deviate fro% the #6 decision to absolve S/0 and its officials
fro% the conte%pt char'es filed a'ainst the%.+I&phi +
BH"R"$OR", in *.R. No. +,--.., the petition is D"NI"D. 6ccordin'l1, the Resolutions, dated Nove%ber
+9, -::; and $ebruar1 +:, -::(, of the #ourt of 6ppeals, in #6!*.R. No. SP <9+-<, are 6$$IRM"D.
In *.R. No. +<(<)9, the petition is D"NI"D. 6ccordin'l1, the 6pril <, -::, Decision and the Septe%ber ++,
-::, Resolution of the #ourt of 6ppeals 2#63, in #6!*.R. #R No. -<9,+, are 6$$IRM"D.
SO ORD"R"D.
&OSE CATRAL MENDOA
6ssociate 8ustice