G.R. No. 156829 - Montenegro vs. Montenegro

On 14 June 1994, respondent Ma. Teresa L. Montenegro, in her capacity as both a spouse and the natural guardian of her two minor children, Antonio Amelo and Ana Maria Pia Isabel, filed a complaint for support against petitioner Ramon D. Montenegro.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 94-8467 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Bacolod City.
Four years later, both parties executed a compromise agreement that was subsequently approved by the trial court on 13 October 1998, which became final and executory as there was no appeal.

Petitioner was obligated to pay the respondent One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) representing her share in the conjugal partnership.

P500,000 was to be paid upon signing, while the remaining P500,000 was to be paid within one year from execution.

Petitioner was required to establish a trust fund of Three Million Pesos (P3,000,000) for their minor children within sixty (60) days after the approval.
Petitioner was to secure an educational or investment plan to cover tuition and matriculation fees for Ana Maria Pia Isabel’s college education within one (1) year.

Despite the agreement, petitioner failed to perform his obligations.
Respondent Teresa moved for the execution of the judgment, which led the trial court to issue a writ of execution on 15 February 1999.
Subsequent writs and notices of garnishment issued in May 2001 were returned unsatisfied.

During conferences called by the trial court—including those on 13 September 2001, 30 January 2002, and 6 March 2002—petitioner acknowledged his failure to comply and alluded to his insolvency, while respondent Teresa indicated she would file a motion for his examination as judgment obligor.
On 14 March 2002, respondent Teresa filed a motion under Sections 36 and 38 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, urging an immediate examination since petitioner was about to migrate to Canada.
The trial court promptly ordered on 19 March 2002 that petitioner be examined on 22 March 2002.

On 22 March 2002, petitioner did not appear for the scheduled hearing, claiming he misunderstood the timeline for filing a reply/comment, based on discussions from the earlier conference.
The hearing was re-scheduled to 10 April 2002, yet petitioner again failed to attend, offering explanations that he was already in Canada and that his counsel was unavailable due to other engagements.
Further manifestations by petitioner on 19 March 2002 and 5 April 2002 reiterated his intent to delay his appearance by using his travel abroad as justification, despite the trial court’s clear orders.
On 23 October 2002, when the hearing was re-set after a motion to quash the subpoena (filed on 28 June 2002) was denied, petitioner once more failed to appear.
Consequently, on 8 November 2002, the trial court declared him in indirect contempt for his failure to appear in several scheduled hearings and imposed a penalty of three (3) months imprisonment coupled with a fine of P20,000.
His subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on 3 January 2003, prompting the filing of the petition for review on certiorari.

The central legal issue is whether, on the basis of the facts found by the trial court, it erred in holding petitioner Ramon D. Montenegro guilty of indirect contempt for his deliberate failure to attend the scheduled hearings for his examination as judgment obligor.

A subsidiary issue is whether petitioner’s assertions regarding his right to respond within a purported 30-day period or his claims of insolvency and travel abroad justified his non-compliance.
Another point for consideration is if the trial court abused its discretion by not granting his requests for rescheduling or reconsideration, thereby infringing on his right to due process.