Case Digest (G.R. No. 165734)
Facts:
Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza v. Daniel Wistehuff, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 165734, June 16, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Atty. Ramon B. Ceniza (also a 5% shareholder of Inmark Marketing Philippines, Inc. (IMPI)) sued IMPI and the other stockholders — respondents Daniel Wistehuff, Sr., Daniel Wistehuff III, Marites Gonzales‑Wistehuff, and Bryan K. Wistehuff — in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City, Branch 11, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB‑26274‑SRC, claiming, among other things, entitlement to an accounting, declaration of dividends, specific performance of his retainer contract, damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC rendered judgment for Ceniza on March 27, 2003 ordering, inter alia, that defendants make “a true and correct accounting of the earnings of the corporation which will be the basis of the declaration of dividends,” and awarded specified damages and fees.
After Ceniza moved for execution pending appeal, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order on August 14, 2003 partially granting execution — specifically authorizing issuance of a writ of execution to enforce the accounting portion of the judgment. A writ of execution was issued September 11, 2003 and, on September 15, 2003, IMPI (through counsel Atty. Francis M. Zosa) furnished the sheriff a set of corporate financial statements for 2002.
Believing the submitted 2002 financial statement to be fraudulent and not a “true and correct accounting,” petitioner filed a separate petition for indirect contempt (Rule 71, Sec. 3 / Rule 39, Sec. 11) in the RTC (docketed CEB‑29783), alleging willful disobedience of the writ of execution and praying for coercive relief including incarceration under Sec. 8, Rule 71. The contempt petition was re‑raffled and, after respondents filed answers and documentary submissions, the RTC (presiding judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr.) dismissed the contempt petition by Order dated April 15, 2004, holding that petitioner had not proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that respondents had sufficiently complied by submitting the financial statement.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the RTC (Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.) denied reconsideration on July 7, 2004, reasoning that an acquittal/exoneration from contempt is not appealable and that a motion for reconsideration would amount to an appeal. Meanwhile, in the principal action the trial court (Branch 7) granted petitioner’s motion to appoint a commissioner to receive evidence and report on the true accounting (Order dated July 15, 2004). IMPI filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the appointment of the commissioner (CA‑G.R. SP No. 85301); the CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order on August 4, 2004 and a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction on October 14, 2004 enjoining implementation of the commissioner order.
Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court seeking, among other reliefs, nullification of the RTC’s April 15 and September 30, 2004 Orders (dismissing the contempt petition and denying due course to a notice of appeal) and of the CA’s August 4 and October 14, 2004 Re...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the petition state a proper cause of action to nullify the Court of Appeals’ interlocutory Resolutions in CA‑G.R. SP No. 85301 by a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari?
- Was the petition for indirect contempt filed by petitioner in the RTC criminal or civil in nature?
- Were the RTC Orders dismissing the contempt petition and denying due course to petitioner’s notice of appeal appealable?
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to nullif...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)