7.

Contempt [Rule 71, Rules of Court]

A. Cause of Action:
1. Not Required in Direct Contempt

According to Section 1 of Rule 71:

A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a

court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward the court xxx may be
summarily adjudged in contempt

As direct contempt may be grounded upon disrespect towards the

court, an order finding a party guilty of direct contempt does not need
cause of action. For in such scenario, a party may disrespect a court
without committing an act or omission in violation of his obligation
not to impede upon the rights of others.

This is supported by judicial pronouncements defining acts which

constitute direct contempt. In Lu Ym vs. Mahinay, G.R. No. 169476 (June
16, 2006), a case involving direct contempt, the court explained that:

Contempt 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 xxx.

The punishment for Direct Contempt is generally summary and

immediate, no process or evidence is necessary, because the
contemptuous act is done in the presence of the court [Lorenzo
Shipping vs. DMA, G.R. No. 155849 August 31, 2011]

2. Not Required in Indirect Contempt

Much like Direct Contempt, the Rules of Court likewise provides for the
grounds for which a party may be held in Indirect Contempt, to wit:

Rule 71, Section 3 xxx

 (a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his
official duties or in his official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after
being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the
judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction,
enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such
real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or
possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to
the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes
or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under
section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and
acting as such without authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in
the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of a
court held by him.

The Supreme Court explained in BPI vs. Calanza, G.R. No. 180699
(October 13, 2010) 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.
However, such power should be exercised on the preservative,
not on the vindictive, principle. Only occasionally should the
court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect,
without which the administration of justice will falter or fail.
Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should
the power be exercised. Such power, being drastic and
extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless
necessary in the interest of justice.

Verily, as a party may be held in contempt for the grounds provided

in the Rules of Court, without having to violate the rights of the
opposing party, a cause of action on the part of the opposing party is
not required for indirect contempt. It is readily seen from the rules and
from jurisprudence that in cases of contempt, courts are not limited to
considering any act or omission in violation of the others partys
rights. Rather, indirect contempt may be meted out on the grounds
of violating the courts authority.

While Indirect Contempt proceedings are less summary than direct

contempt proceedings, a cause of action is not necessary. The court has
held that in such proceedings what is necessary are notice, written
charges, and an opportunity to deny and to defend such charges before
guilt is adjudged and sentence imposed [Lorenzo Shipping vs. DMA, G.R.
No. 155849 August 31, 2011]
B. Kind of Action: Personal Action; In Personam

The Supreme Court in Lorenzo Shipping vs. DBA, G.R. No. 155849
(August 31, 2011) defined contempt as:

a willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority

Hence, what is involved is a persons conduct and

transgressions, without any reference to real property owned by
him or those in which he has an interest.

Moreover, an action to hold a party liable for contempt is an action

in personam. Under Rule 71 section 1 and 7, punishment shall be
in the form of fines or imprisonment. Thus, there is again no
reference to property owned by the person liable.

An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of

his personal liability, while an action in rem is an action against the
thing itself, instead of against the person [Gomez vs. C.A., G.R. No.
127692, March 10, 2004].