G.R. No.

L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAG…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > April 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 -
MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAGOZA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

094 Phil 749:

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-6525. April 12, 1954.]

MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAGOZA ET AL., Petitioners, v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ETC. ET AL.,

Respondents.

Pio L. Pestaño, for Petitioners.

Ricardo Agbunag for Respondents.

SYLLABUS

CERTIORARI; DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS CONSTITUTES ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — Where a written

charge for contempt was filed against petitioners, but no copy thereof has been served on them, and
their plea to be given an opportunity to answer the charge before any action is taken against them was
disregarded, this action is tantamount to a denial of due process which may be considered as a grave
abuse of discretion.

DECISION

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction seeking to set aside certain orders of
respondent Judge which direct the immediate arrest of petitioners for their failure to appear to show
cause why they should not be punished for contempt, and to set aside the decision rendered by the Court
of Appeals dated November 17, 1952, sustaining and giving effect to the aforesaid orders.

The orders herein referred to had arisen in a case instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal by the
Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines against Marta Banclos de Esparagoza, Et
Al., in connection with the disposition of the amount of $1,190.83 accruing to one Aniceto Esparagoza,
deceased, as pay in arrears due the said deceased (Civil Case No. 877). The case was instituted in order
that it may be determined who among the different claimants as heirs of the deceased is entitled to the
amount in question. After due hearing, the court found that Marta Banclos, the widow, is the only person

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1954aprildecisions.php?id=94 Page 1 of 4
G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAG…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

entitled to receive the benefits of the estate, and, accordingly, it ordered that the amount of $1,190.83
be paid to her. However, as the widow, and her lawyer, in a gesture of nobility, agreed to give one-half of
said amount to the four illegitimate children of the deceased, the court also included in the decision an
injunction that the widow deposit with the Philippine National Bank said one-half, or the sum of $595.41,
in the name of the four minor children, in equal shares, to be disposed of in accordance with law.

Two months after the money was received by the widow as directed in the decision, Angela Fernandez,
mother of the four minor children, demanded that the money be given to her instead of being deposited
in the bank alleging as reason that if it be so deposited, she would encounter difficulties in withdrawing
the money for the benefit of the children. The widow refused to agree to the request unless the mother
secure from the court an order authorizing her to receive the money in line with her request. The mother
failed to do so, nor was she able to disclose the whereabouts of the children, and instead the widow
came to know that the children were no longer living with their mother but had been given away to well-
to-do couples who promised to bring them up and take care of them, and so, upon advice of Atty. Pio L.
Pestaño, her counsel, the widow declined to give the money either to the mother or to the children. The
result was that, on March 28, 1952, Angela Fernandez, the mother, instituted contempt proceedings
against the herein petitioners in view of their failure to deliver the money as ordered by the court in its
decision in Civil Case No. 877.
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
The petition for contempt was set for hearing, and after the widow and her counsel were duly heard, the
Division court found the petition without merit, and denied the same. Six months thereafter, a similar petition for
contempt was filed by Angela Fernandez wherein she reiterated the same acts of dereliction of duty on
the part of herein petitioners, copy of which was never served on the petitioners. However, the same was
acted upon ex parte by the court who, on October 18, 1952, issued an order directing them to appear
and show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for having disobeyed the order of the
court. Copy of this order was served on petitioner Pestaño on October 22, 1952, and on October 25, the
latter submitted to the court a written statement explaining the circumstances why he could not show
cause as directed among which was the failure of the movant to serve on him a copy of the petition
containing the charges for contempt. In said written manifestation, petitioner Pestaño made the special
request that the order requiring his appearance be held inabeyance until after he shall have been served
with copy of the petition for contempt as required by the rules, and that no action thereon be taken until
after he shall have been given an opportunity to answer said motion. Instead of acceding to this request,
the court, on October 25, 1952, issued an order directing his immediate arrest and that of his client
Marta Banclos de Esparagoza. They sought to set aside order by bringing the matter to the Court of
Appeals by way of certiorari, but their petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

The only issue to be determined is whether respondent Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction or acted with
grave abuse of discretion in issuing his order of October 25, 1952, directing the immediate arrest of
petitioners herein in view of their failure to appear and show cause why they should not be punished for
contempt for having disobeyed the order of the court. The determination of this issue would depend upon
an examination of the facts leading to the issuance of the disputed order.

It should be recalled that because of the refusal of Marta Banclos de Esparagoza. following the advice of
her counsel and co- petitioner, Pio L. Pestaño, to deposit the money belonging to the four minor children
with the Philippine National Bank, or to deliver it to their mother, Angela Fernandez, as demanded by the
latter, Angela Fernandez filed a petition for contempt in the main case praying that the two be ordered to
show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for their failure to obey the decision of the
court. This petition was acted upon by the court ex parte, and because petitioners herein never received
copy of the petition for contempt, they, submitted a written manifestation to the court praying that action
thereon be held in abeyance and that they be not required to appear until after they shall have been
given an opportunity to answer as required by the rules of court. This special request was disregarded by
the court and considering their failure to appear as a defiance, the court ordered their immediate arrest.
Is this attitude of the court justifiable under this rules?

Section 3, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court provides: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 3. Contempt punished after charge and hearing. — After charge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the
April-1954 Jurisprudence following acts may be punished for contempt: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

G.R. No. L-5477 April 12, 1954 - QUING v. x x x.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
"(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or
094 Phil 736 injunction granted by a court or judge;

G.R. No. L-5943 April 12, 1954 - CO SAN v. x x x.

CELEDONIO AGRAVA, ET AL.
"But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring
094 Phil 739
the accused party into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings." cralaw virtua1aw library

G.R. No. L-6029 April 12, 1954 - YU CHONG TIAN v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. As may be seen, a contempt proceeding as a rule is initiated by filing a charge in writing with the court,
and after the charge is filed, an opportunity should be given the accused to be heard, by himself or
094 Phil 742 counsel, before action could be taken against him. Here, it is true, a written charge was filed against
petitioners, but no copy thereof has been served on them, nor have they been given an opportunity to be
G.R. No. L-6095 April 12, 1954 - DAVID v. CARLOS heard. The petitioners asked for this opportunity, but it was denied them. Instead, their arrest was
SISON immediately ordered. It is true that, under the same rule, "nothing . . . shall be so construed as to
prevent the court from issuing process to bring the accused party into court, or from holding him in
094 Phil 747 custody pending such proceedings", but such drastic step can only be taken if good reasons exist
justifying it. Apparently, this reason does not exist. Petitioners not having received copy of the written
G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS
charge, they asked that they be given one. They also asked that they be given an opportunity to answer
DE ESPARAGOZA, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.
said charge before action is taken against them. Both pleas were disregarded. Such action, in our
094 Phil 749 opinion, is tantamount to a denial of due process, which may be considered as a grave abuse of
discretion. As this court has aptly said: "Courts should be slow in jailing people for non-compliance with
G.R. No. L-6570 April 12, 1954 - JUAN PLANAS and their orders. Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised. A
SOFIA VERDON v. MADRIGAL & CO., ET AL. bona fide misunderstanding of the terms of the order or of the procedural rules should not immediately
cause the institution of contempt proceedings." (Gamboa v. Teodoro, 91 Phil., 270.)
094 Phil 754
Wherefore, the orders of respondent Judge dated October 18, 1952 and October 25, 1952, are hereby
G.R. No. L-6206 April 13, 1954 - AURELIO G. set aside and it is hereby ordered that before action be taken on the motion for contempt, petitioners
GAVIERES v. EMILIO SANCHEZ, ET AL. herein be given an opportunity to answer said motion as prayed for in their written explanation dated
October 24, 1952, without costs.
094 Phil 760

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1954aprildecisions.php?id=94 Page 2 of 4
G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAG…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

G.R. No. L-5257 April 14, 1954 - ARSENIO Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion and Diokno, JJ., concur.
ALGARIN, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO NAVARRO, ET AL.

094 Phil 764

G.R. No. L-6089 April 20, 1954 - VICENTE YLANAN

v. AQUILINO O. MERCADO Back to Home | Back to Main
094 Phil 769

G.R. No. L-6201 April 20, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE QUICK SEARCH
PHIL. v. FELIPE A. LIVARA

094 Phil 771

G.R. No. L-6307 April 20, 1954 - FELICIANO 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
MANALANG, ET AL. v. GERCIA CANLAS, ET AL. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
094 Phil 776 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. L-6339 April 20, 1954 - MANUEL LARA, ET
AL. v. PETRONILO DEL ROSARIO, JR. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
094 Phil 778
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
G.R. No. L-5897 April 23, 1954 - KING MAU WU v. 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
FRANCISCO SYCIP
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
094 Phil 784 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. L-6134 April 23, 1954 - RUBEN VALERO, ET 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
AL. v. ISABEL FOLLANTE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
094 Phil 789 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. L-6459 April 23, 1954 - CONSOLACION C.
VDA. DE VERZOSA v. BONIFACIO RIGONAN, ET AL. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

094 Phil 794

G.R. No. L-6855 April 23, 1954 - LAZARO R. BIEN v.

PEDRO BERAQUIT

094 Phil 798 Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

G.R. No. L-6003 April 26, 1954 - RAMON R. DIZON

ET AL. v. SIMEON OCAMPO ET AL.

094 Phil 803

G.R. No. L-6063 April 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES v. LEON AQUINO

094 Phil 805

G.R. No. L-6118 April 26, 1954 - LARRY J. JOHNSON

v. HOWARD M. TURNER, ET AL.

094 Phil 807

G.R. No. L-5137 April 27, 1954 - E. E. ELSER, INC.,

ET AL. v. DE LA RAMA STEAMSHIP CO. INC., ET AL.

094 Phil 812

G.R. No. L-5631 April 27, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. FELIX GARCIA

094 Phil 814

G.R. No. L-6691 April 27, 1954 - GAUDENCIO DAY,

ET AL. v. GERARDO P. TIOSECO, ET AL.

094 Phil 816

G.R. No. L-5387 April 29, 1954 - CLYDE E. MCGEE v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

094 Phil 820

G.R. No. L-5478 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. BENJAMIN JISTIADO, ET AL.

094 Phil 825

G.R. No. L-5547 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. PEDRO MANANTAN, ET AL.

094 Phil 831

G.R. No. L-5867 April 29, 1954 - RUPERTO SY v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

094 Phil 836

G.R. No. L-6061 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. CARMEN LICOP

094 Phil 839

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1954aprildecisions.php?id=94 Page 3 of 4
G.R. No. L-6525 April 12, 1954 - MARTA BANCLOS DE ESPARAG…REME COURT JURISPRUDENCE - CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY 12/10/2018, 9)52 PM

G.R. No. L-6291 April 29, 1954 - SAN PEDRO BUS

LINE, ET AL. v. NICOLAS NAVARRO, ET AL.

094 Phil 846

G.R. No. L-6323 April 29, 1954 - BASILIA COLOMA

VDA. DE VALDEZ v. CONSTANTE L. FARIÑAS, ET AL.

094 Phil 850

G.R. No. L-6498 April 29, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. ZENAIDA FLORES

094 Phil 855

G.R. No. L-6822 April 29, 1954 - OSCAR

VENTANILLA v. HONORABLE L. PASICOLAN

094 Phil 859

G.R. No. L-7071 April 29, 1954 - PEDRO CRISOLO v.

HIGINO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

094 Phil 862

G.R. No. L-3659 April 30, 1954 - PHIL.

OPERATIONS, INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

094 Phil 868

G.R. Nos. L-5304 to L-5324 April 30, 1954 - SMITH

BELL & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. AMERICAN PRES. LINES,
ET AL.

094 Phil 879

G.R. No. L-5663 April 30, 1954 - PEDRO TAN v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

094 Phil 882

G.R. No. L-5848 April 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. SY PIO

094 Phil 885

G.R. No. L-6155 April 30, 1954 - JOSE SON v. CEBU

AUTOBUS CO.

094 Phil 892

G.R. No. L-6216 April 30, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHIL. v. AMANDO AUSTRIA

094 Phil 897

G.R. No. L-6898 April 30, 1954 - LUIS MANALANG v.

AURELIO QUITORIANO, ET AL.

094 Phil 903

Copyright © 1998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1954aprildecisions.php?id=94 Page 4 of 4