Title
Bernard vs. Catolico
Case
G.R. No. L-25860
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1967
City officials challenged contempt charges for refusing to provide a detention cell for provincial prisoners; Supreme Court ruled city had no legal duty, nullifying the judge's order.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-25860)

Facts:

  1. Contempt Charge Initiation: On March 11, 1966, respondent Judge Alfredo Catolico of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch I, issued an order directing the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, Councilors, City Treasurer, and City Auditor of Ozamiz City (petitioners) to appear on March 19, 1966, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for refusing to provide a "detention cell or room" for provincial detention prisoners pending trial in Branch II of the court.

  2. City's Response: On March 14, 1966, the Municipal Board of Ozamiz City adopted Resolution No. 159, offering the temporary use of a city jail cell for provincial detention prisoners until the province could construct its own jail. However, the board maintained that this duty belonged to the province, not the city.

  3. Petitioners' Defense: On March 17, 1966, petitioners filed their answer to the contempt charge, asserting that they had provided a detention cell for city prisoners but not for those from other towns within Branch II's jurisdiction, as this duty fell on the provincial authorities.

  4. Court Proceedings: On March 19, 1966, petitioners appeared before the respondent Judge, who indicated that the case might be closed but later scheduled a continuation for March 26, 1966.

  5. Further Developments: On March 22, 1966, the Clerk of Court warned petitioners to remedy the situation within two days or face contempt charges. On March 24, 1966, the City Mayor requested written directions from the Judge, who responded that the matter was a "joint venture" between city and provincial officials.

  6. Supreme Court Intervention: On March 25, 1966, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, which issued a cease-and-desist order the same day.

  7. Judge's Unpromulgated Order: On March 26, 1966, the respondent Judge signed an order dropping the contempt charges against petitioners, citing their cooperation. However, this order was not promulgated due to the Supreme Court's restraining order.

Issue:

  1. Primary Issue: Is it the duty of the City of Ozamiz to provide a detention cell for and maintain provincial detention prisoners whose cases are cognizable by Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental?

  2. Secondary Issue: Did the respondent Judge act without jurisdiction in issuing the March 11, 1966, order demanding compliance from petitioners under threat of contempt?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.