21.

Taylor filed Ejectment case against Adele before the MeTC in Makati City over a commercial lot and
building. On the other hand, Adele filed complaint for Damages for P450,000.00 against Taylor before
RTC of Pasay City

Before RTC of Pasay City, Adele submitted therein a motion containing offensive and malicious
statements against the MeTC of Makati City handling the Ejectment case.

a. Such submission of motion containing offensive and malicious statements constitutes what
contempt charge-direct or indirect contempt? Explain. (2%)
b. In case a contempt charge is to be filed by Taylor against Adele in Makati City, in which court
should it be filed-MeTC or RTC of Makati City? Explain. (2%)

Answer:
a. Indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d) as any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to
impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Indirect contempt is one not
committed in the presence of a court. It is an act done at a distance which tends to belittle,
degrade, obstruct or embarrass the court and justice (Siy vs. NLRC, 2005). It is not direct
contempt, as the submission of the motion containing offensive and malicious statements was
not done in the presence of, or so near the same court to which such statements were directed
to.
b. It should be filed either in Makati City, in the RTC of the place where the lower court is sitting, or
MeTC Makati City, subject to appeal to the RTC of Makati City (Sec. 5, Rule 71).

22. Nognog, the accused in Qualified Theft of money wherein civil action is deemed jointly instituted,
was acquitted by RTC of Makati City on the ground that the Prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.

The judgment of acquittal, however, failed to make express pronouncement as to whether or not said
accused is civilly liable to the offended party.

What proper petition should you file before the higher court to remedy the foregoing situation? Explain
well. (4%)

Answer: I will file an appeal to the CA, either via Rule 41 or Rule 42, depending on the court of origin.
Deemed instituted in every criminal prosecution is the civil liability arising from the crime or delict per se
(civil liability ex delicto), but not those liabilities from quasi-delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. The
offended party may appeal a judgment in a criminal case acquitting the accused on reasonable doubt,
but only in regard to the civil liability ex delicto (Neplum Inc. vs Orbeso, 2002)

23. Plaintiff moved for Execution of MeTC Judgment on Ejectment pending appeal interposed by
Defendant. Plaintiff’s motion, however, does not contain “good reasons” for issuance of Writ of
Execution Pending Appeal nor the MeTC order contains the “good reasons” therefor.

Are Plaintiff and the MeTC correct in this instance? Why? (4%)

Answer: Yes. Sec. 19, Rule 70 provides that execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an
appeal has been perfected and the defendant files a supersedeas bond for accrued rentals to the MTC,
and periodically deposit accruing rentals to the RTC. The objective of the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases governed by it. This
objective provides the good reason that justifies immediate execution of the decision, if the standards of
Sec. 2, Rule 39 of the ROC on execution pending appeal are considered

24. For Failure to obey subpoena ad testificandum duly served upon witness Alberto and without
justifiable reason for failure to do so, the MTC judge summarily adjudged him for Direct Contempt and
fined him for P1,000.00

Is the MTC Judge correct? Give reasons. (4%)

Answer: No, the MTC judge is incorrect. Sec. 1, Rule 71 states that direct contempt is misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings. Failure to obey a subpoena is
a ground for charging a person of indirect contempt under Sec. 3(f). The judge cannot summarily judge
Alberto and punish him right there and then, as a case of indirect contempt must be initiated by an
order of the court or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should
not be punished for contempt, giving the person charged an opportunity to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court, and to be heard by himself or counsel.

25. If you were a trial court judge, how would you proceed in a case or incident pending before you if
the procedure to be followed in the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by
law or the Rules of Court? Explain. (4%).

Answer: As a trial court judge, I will apply the procedure and corresponding laws that are most
analogous and just to the case at hand. Art. 9 of the Civil Code provides that no judge or court shall
decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.