G.R. No. 155849 - Lorenzo Shipping Corp. vs. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines

On June 4, 2001, the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) issued a Letter-Resolution advising the Distribution Management Association of the Philippines (DMAP) that computation of the required freight rate adjustment was no longer necessary for freight rates declared deregulated under MARINA Memorandum Circular No. 153 (MC 153), itself issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 213 (EO 213) on Deregulating Domestic Shipping Rates promulgated on November 24, 1994.
DMAP challenged the constitutionality of EO 213, MC 153, and the Letter-Resolution dated June 4, 2001, by filing a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 2, 2001 (CA-G.R. SP No. 65463).
On November 29, 2001, the CA dismissed DMAP’s petition, upholding the constitutionality of these issuances, and on April 10, 2002, denied DMAP’s motion for reconsideration.
DMAP then appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 152914). The Supreme Court denied DMAP’s petition for review on certiorari on June 5, 2002, for procedural lapses, specifically for failure to file within the reglementary period and failure to pay mandatory fees.
The Supreme Court denied DMAP’s motion for reconsideration with finality on August 12, 2002.

In October 2002, during DMAP’s general membership meeting (GMM), co-respondents Lorenzo Cinco (President) and Cora Curay (consultant/adviser) disseminated the "Sea Transport Update," a publication that commented on the Court’s resolutions mentioned above.
The Sea Transport Update included statements such as:

The motion for reconsideration was denied on technicalities rather than on the legal merits.
The Supreme Court ruling was issued in one month, whereas the normal lead time was three to six months.
DMAP members were advised not to pay the 20% general rate increase (GRI) until the issue was resolved by MARINA.
It was anticipated that another group might file a similar case, returning the issue to MARINA for resolution.

Petitioners, comprising Lorenzo Shipping Corporation, Oceanic Container Lines, Inc., Solid Shipping Lines Corporation, Sulpicio Lines, Inc., and others, filed a special civil action for indirect contempt against DMAP and its officers, alleging that statements in the Sea Transport Update were contemptuous.
They argued that the publication unjustly and baselessly insinuated that the Supreme Court was influenced by petitioners, thereby disparaging the Court's dignity and integrity.
Specifically, the petitioners decried the phrase "Supreme Court ruling issued in one month only, normal lead time is at least 3 to 6 months" as malicious innuendo implying improper influence.

Respondents denied any intention to malign or discredit the Court, asserting that the statements merely conveyed the expedited denial of their petition on technical grounds.
They stated the term “lead time” was business parlance explaining the unusual timeline for the Court’s ruling compared to the usual duration.
They emphasized that the substantive issue of the 20% GRI’s reasonableness was still subject to resolution by MARINA, consistent with the CA’s ruling upheld by the Supreme Court.
The respondents maintained their statements were not a defiance of the Court’s final orders, as no final judgment had yet been entered at the time of the GMM.

Whether the statements contained in the Sea Transport Update amounted to indirect contempt of court by insulting, disparaging, or defying the Supreme Court’s authority.