Case Digest (G.R. No. 155849)
Facts:
Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, Oceanic Container Lines, Inc., Solid Shipping Lines Corporation, Sulpicio Lines, Inc., et al. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, Lorenzo Cinco, and Cora Curay, G.R. No. 155849, August 31, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are several liner companies who charged respondents with indirect contempt for statements in a DMAP publication titled the Sea Transport Update distributed at DMAP’s October 2002 general membership meeting; respondents are Distribution Management Association of the Philippines (DMAP) and two of its officers, Lorenzo Cinco (president) and Cora Curay (consultant/adviser).
The factual background began with MARINA’s Letter‑Resolution of June 4, 2001, advising DMAP that MARINA need not compute freight‑rate adjustments for rates declared deregulated under MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 153 (MC 153), itself issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 213 (EO 213). DMAP filed a certiorari and prohibition petition in the Court of Appeals on July 2, 2001 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 65463); the CA dismissed the petition on November 29, 2001, upholding the constitutionality of EO 213, MC 153, and the June 4 Letter‑Resolution. The CA denied DMAP’s motion for reconsideration on April 10, 2002. DMAP then sought review in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 152914), but the Court denied the petition on June 5, 2002 for procedural defects (failure to perfect the appeal and to pay required deposit), and denied reconsideration with finality on August 12, 2002.
At DMAP’s October 2002 GMM, DMAP (through Cinco and Curay) circulated the Sea Transport Update, which stated, among other things, that DMAP’s motion for reconsideration was “denied based on technicalities and not on the legal issue DMAP presented” and that the “Supreme Court ruling issued in one month only, normal lead time is at least 3 to 6 months.” Petitioners filed a special civil action in the Supreme Court charging respondents with indirect contempt for allegedly insinuating that the Court had been improperly influenced and for encouraging defiance of the Court’s resolutions. Respondents filed a comment (Jan. 20, 2003) denying any malign int...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the statements contained in the Sea Transport Update constitute or amount to indirect contempt of court...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)