Where to file | Contempt (RULE 71) | SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

WHERE TO FILE A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 71 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT
(A Comprehensive Discussion)

I. OVERVIEW OF CONTEMPT UNDER RULE 71

Contempt of court is a defiance of or disobedience to the authority, justice, or dignity of the court. It may also consist of conduct that tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines outlines two general classes of contempt:

  1. Direct Contempt (Section 1, Rule 71): Contempt committed in the presence of, or so near, a court or judge that it obstructs or interrupts the proceedings, including offensive language or disrespect toward the court.
  2. Indirect (or Constructive) Contempt (Section 3, Rule 71): Contempt committed outside the immediate view or presence of the court. Common examples include disobedience to a court order, improper interference with court proceedings, or acts constituting fraud or deceit upon the court.

Why “Where to File” Matters
The rules on venue and the proper court to hear a contempt charge are crucial. Filing a contempt proceeding in the wrong tribunal can lead to outright dismissal or delayed resolution. Moreover, the power to punish for contempt must be exercised by the proper court, in line with due process.

II. WHERE TO FILE DIRECT CONTEMPT

Under Section 1, Rule 71, direct contempt is punished summarily by the court in which the contemptuous act was committed. There is no separate “venue” issue or separate charge to be filed, because the presiding judge who witnesses or is made aware of the contumacious act may immediately cite the erring party for direct contempt and impose the proper sanction (fine or imprisonment, or both).

Hence, for direct contempt:

  • The court before which the misbehavior happened can at once proceed to punish it.
  • There is no need for a written charge or a separate case number in most instances because the court acts summarily when it has directly perceived the contempt.

III. WHERE TO FILE INDIRECT (CONSTRUCTIVE) CONTEMPT

Indirect contempt, by contrast, requires the filing of a charge (a verified petition, motion, or formal complaint) and a hearing. The rules on venue and jurisdiction are embodied primarily in Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.

A. General Rule

Section 4, Rule 71 provides:

  1. If the act constituting indirect contempt is committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of the first level (i.e., Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court):

    • The charge may be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the place wherein the contemptuous act was committed.

  2. If the act was committed against the Court of Appeals or a justice thereof:

    • The charge may be filed in the Court of Appeals.

  3. If the act was committed against the Supreme Court or any of its divisions or justices:

    • The charge shall be filed in the Supreme Court.

In practice, however, while the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over contempt committed against it, it may refer the matter to a lower court or the Court of Appeals for reception of evidence or appropriate proceeding if necessary.

B. Specific Scenarios and Guiding Principles

  1. Contempt against a Municipal/Metropolitan Trial Court (“MTC”/“MeTC”):

    • Even if the contempt was allegedly committed against an MTC, the indirect contempt charge is lodged with the Regional Trial Court that exercises supervisory jurisdiction over that MTC.

  2. Contempt against a Regional Trial Court (“RTC”):

    • Where the contemptuous act was committed against an RTC, the indirect contempt charge is filed in the same RTC or, if prudence or ethical considerations require another branch to handle it (e.g., if the presiding judge of the original branch is personally involved in the contempt issue), it may be assigned to a different branch within the same judicial region for hearing.

  3. Contempt against the Court of Appeals (“CA”):

    • The charge is filed directly in the Court of Appeals. The CA either proceeds to hear it or may designate a trial court as commissioner for fact-finding (if an elaborate hearing is needed).

  4. Contempt against the Supreme Court (“SC”):

    • The charge is filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may hear it or refer it to a lower court or the CA for reception of evidence.

  5. Contempt in relation to Quasi-Judicial Bodies:

    • Some quasi-judicial agencies (e.g., National Labor Relations Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, etc.) are expressly granted contempt powers by their enabling statutes. Where a particular agency does not have direct contempt powers but has the right to initiate a contempt proceeding for noncompliance with its lawful orders, the charge is generally filed in the Regional Trial Court that exercises jurisdiction over the area where the act was committed.
    • If the law specifically grants the agency the power to punish for contempt directly or indirectly, follow that enabling law’s procedure. Otherwise, it falls back on the general rule that you file it in the proper RTC (and, in certain circumstances, the Court of Appeals, depending on the statutory framework).

  6. Contempt for violation of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) or Injunction:

    • The contempt charge for noncompliance with an injunction or TRO is typically filed in the same court that issued the TRO or injunction. If it was a TRO or injunction from an RTC, the contempt charge belongs to that RTC (or a co-equal branch if a need to avoid bias arises). If it came from the Court of Appeals, then the CA retains jurisdiction.

  7. Contempt for violation of the final judgment or order of a court:

    • Generally, the court that rendered the final judgment or issued the order retains the power to cite for contempt. Hence, the filing is made in that court, unless there is a reason for change of venue or disqualification of the judge.

IV. CHANGE OF VENUE OR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE JUDGE

Under Section 11, Rule 71, if the judge or court that is the object of the contumacious conduct cannot impartially preside over the contempt charge (e.g., the judge is personally attacked), the matter may be referred or transferred to another branch within the same station or to another court or judge designated by the Supreme Court. This ensures impartiality and due process.

V. PROCEDURAL POINTS TO REMEMBER

  1. Initiation by Verified Petition or Motion:

    • An indirect contempt proceeding is commenced by a verified petition or motion, containing the factual allegations showing how the act amounts to contempt.

  2. Due Process Requirements:

    • The alleged contemner (the person charged with contempt) must be given the opportunity to explain or justify the act. They must be served with a show cause order or equivalent process and given time to file a comment or counter-affidavit.

  3. Nature of the Proceeding (Civil vs. Criminal Aspects):

    • Contempt proceedings have a sui generis character. Indirect contempt can be penal in nature (punishing an offense against the authority of the court) and may also be coercive/remedial (to compel compliance with a court order).

  4. Right to Appeal or Remedies of the Contemner:

    • A person found guilty of direct contempt may seek remedy via certiorari or appeal (depending on the circumstance and stage).
    • A judgment in indirect contempt is generally subject to appeal in the manner authorized by law (to the CA if the order was issued by the RTC, or directly to the SC if the order was issued by the CA).

  5. Effect on the Main Action:

    • The contempt proceeding is usually ancillary or separate from the main action. It does not necessarily affect the merits of the principal case, unless the contempt proceeding itself concerns the enforcement or integrity of the main action’s orders.

VI. KEY JURISPRUDENCE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Several Supreme Court decisions have clarified that:

  • Venue is jurisdictional in indirect contempt cases (i.e., it must be filed in the correct court based on Rule 71, Section 4).
  • No court can punish contempt against another court of equal or higher rank (except under circumstances provided by law or a referral from the higher court).
  • If a party violates or disobeys a court order, the remedy is to file a contempt charge in the court that issued the order or in the court specified by Rule 71, not to initiate an entirely separate civil or criminal action unless other laws are violated.

VII. CONCLUSION

Under Philippine remedial law, the proper forum or venue for a contempt proceeding is determined by two main factors: (1) the level of the court or tribunal against which the contemptuous act is directed, and (2) the nature of the contempt (direct or indirect). Rule 71 explicitly spells out the court in which an indirect contempt charge must be filed:

  • Direct contempt: Punished summarily by the same court in whose presence or proximity the contempt was committed.
  • Indirect contempt: Generally filed by verified petition or motion in the Regional Trial Court if committed against courts of the first or second level (MTC, MeTC, RTC), in the Court of Appeals if committed against the CA or its justices, and in the Supreme Court if committed against the Supreme Court or its members. For quasi-judicial bodies with statutory contempt power, file in accordance with the enabling law or in the RTC if the law so provides.

This clear delineation ensures that courts preserve their dignity and authority, while at the same time safeguarding the constitutional right to due process of those alleged to have committed contemptuous acts.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login