Subject : Indirect Contempt

Nature of contempt proceedings: Criminal and civil contempt

Proceedings for contempt are sui generis, in nature criminal, but may be
resorted to in civil as well as criminal actions, and independently of any action.

A criminal contempt consists in conduct that is directed against the

authority and dignity of a court or of a judge acting judicially, as in unlawfully
assailing or discrediting the authority and dignity of the court or judge, or in
doing a duly forbidden act. A civil contempt consists in the failure to do something
ordered to be done by a court or judge in a civil case for the benefit of the opposing
party therein. It is at times difficult to determine whether the proceedings are civil or
criminal. In general, the character of the contempt of whether it is criminal or civil is
determined by the nature of the contempt involved, regardless of the cause in which
the contempt arose, and by the relief sought or dominant purpose. The proceedings
are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose is primarily punishment, and
civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial. Where the dominant
purpose is to enforce compliance with an order of a court for the benefit of a party in
whose favor the order runs, the contempt is civil; where the dominant purpose is to
vindicate the dignity and authority of the court, and to protect the interests of the
general public, the contempt is criminal. Indeed, the criminal proceedings vindicate
the dignity of the courts, but the civil proceedings protect, preserve, and enforce the
rights of private parties and compel obedience to orders, judgments and decrees made
to enforce such rights. (Lorenzo Shipping Corporation v. Distribution Management
Association of the Philippines, G.R. No. 155849, August 31,2011.)

How can an indirect contempt proceeding be commenced? Requirements.

Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated:

1. Motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by
an order;
2. Any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt;
3. In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a
verified petition with supporting papers involved therein, and upon full
compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions
in the court concerned.
It may be noted that a person may be charged with indirect contempt by either of two
(2) alternative ways, namely: (1) by a verified petition, if initiated by a party; or (2) by
an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt, if made by a court against which the contempt is
committed.

In short, a charge of indirect contempt must be initiated through a verified petition,

unless the charge is directly made by the court against which the contemptuous act is
committed. (Mallari v. GSIS, G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010.)

Procedural requisites in an action for indirect contempt.

Sec.3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, specifically outlines the procedural requisites
before the accused may be punished for indirect contempt.

1. There must be an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be cited for contempt.
2. The respondent must be given the opportunity to comment on the charge
against him.
3. There must be a hearing and the court must investigate the charge and consider
respondent’s answer.
4. Only if found guilty will respondent be punished accordingly.

What is most essential is that the alleged contemner be granted an opportunity to meet
the charges against him and to be heard in his defenses, This is the due process, which
must be observed at all times. (Esperida v. Jurado,Jr. G.R. No. 172538, April 25, 2012.)

Moreover, in contempt proceedings, if the answer to the contempt charge is

satisfactory, the contempt proceedings end. (Esperida v. Jurado,Jr. G.R. No. 172538, April
25, 2012.)