G.R. No. 72969-70 - Philippine Gamefowl Commission vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Petitioners Leopoldo Facinal and Sancha O. Facinal are the registered owners of a fishpond situated at Sapian, Capiz, covering approximately 103 hectares.
In 1957, a portion of this property (around 20 hectares) was leased to Clodualdo Jamora and Luciana Orbion for ten years or until December 31, 1966.

Upon the lapse of the lease, Clodualdo Jamora and Isagani Jamora (who acquired the leasehold rights from Luciana Orbion) refused to vacate the property despite repeated demands by petitioner Leopoldo Facinal.
On January 15, 1968, petitioners initiated an unlawful detainer case against the Jamoras before the Municipal Court of Sapian, Capiz (Civil Case No. M-177 (R-53)), which resulted in a favorable judgment on September 30, 1969.

Following the court’s judgment, a writ of execution was issued on October 17, 1969, leading to the sheriff’s order on December 12, 1969 directing Ramon Dasal, the claimed lessee of Clodualdo Jamora, alongside his associates, to vacate the premises.
After the execution, petitioners were placed in possession of the fishpond; however, a re-entry occurred in January 1970 when Clodualdo Jamora, Isagani Jamora, Ramon Dasal, Domingo Dasal, and Primo Acevedo re-entered the property and refused to leave.

Petitioners filed a contempt proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Capiz as an incident to the prior unlawful detainer litigation.
In a decision dated September 10, 1971, Clodualdo Jamora, Isagani Jamora, Ramon Dasal, and Domingo Dasal were found guilty of indirect contempt, with specific penalties imposed including fines, subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency, and a fixed period of imprisonment until they vacated the property.
Primo Acevedo was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

The petitioners’ ejectment suit against the private respondents saw further complications: on November 19, 1972, Ramon and Domingo Dasal (with accomplices) re-entered the property and removed aquatic resources, an act that led to their conviction for qualified theft in a subsequent decision dated November 3, 1975.
A criminal case was also filed by private respondents against petitioners in March 1973, though the petitioner Leopoldo Facinal was ultimately cleared by a Military Tribunal.
After petitioners reclaimed the property via an alias writ of execution on April 2, 1974, petitioners were again driven out by private respondents accompanied by armed personnel and military forces on April 23, 1974, prompting another contempt proceeding initiated on June 23, 1974.

On July 8, 1977, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding against Ramon and Domingo Dasal for indirect contempt.
After remanding the case record, private respondents applied for probation, which was initially denied on June 15, 1978, on the ground that probation should be contingent upon the respondents’ delivery of the property to petitioners.
On September 15, 1978, respondent judge granted probation through an Order reconsidering the previous decision, arguing that as petitioners were also in possession for a certain period, the condition imposed previously need not be reiterated.
Subsequent motions, including a Motion for Reconsideration filed on December 29, 1978, were denied on November 6, 1978, and December 14, 1978, respectively, with a further denial on February 5, 1979.
Petitioners ultimately sought certiorari and mandamus to annul the probation orders granted to the private respondents, noting that the latter remained in possession of the subject property, thereby flagrantly disregarding the court’s final contempt order.

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting probation to private respondents who remained in possession of the subject property.
Whether allowing probation under such circumstances effectively condones the repeated defiance of court orders and undermines the judicial process.

Whether the probation should be conditioned on the respondents’ complete and permanent vacation and delivery of the property to the petitioners.
Whether the court should enforce the original contempt order until the respondents comply with the final decision, rather than permitting them to remain in possession.

The impact on the rights of petitioners who have continuously sought to enforce the ejectment proceedings.
How granting probation in the face of clear non-compliance could potentially encourage further contemptuous behavior and subvert the rule of law.