G.R. No. L-15692 - Alarcon vs. Alarcon

The case involves the intestate estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio, which comprises various assets including shares of stock in Pilipinas Development Corporation (PDC) and a residential property in Urdaneta Village.
The parties are:

Petitioners: Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (Ricardo Sr.), the surviving spouse of Beatriz S. Silverio, and his second wife, Lorna Cillan-Silverio.
Respondent: Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (Ricardo Jr.), along with other heirs namely Edmundo, Ligaya, and Nelia Silverio-Dee.

October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order by the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 57

It partially reconsidered a previous order dated December 12, 2005 by removing Ricardo Sr. as administrator for gross violations and appointing Ricardo Jr. as the new administrator (subject to bond requirements).
Authorized the sale of real properties located in Forbes Park and Bel-Air Subdivision, Makati City to partially settle the estate.
Directed that the proceeds be applied to payment of taxes, penalties, and other charges, with the residue distributed among the heirs in accordance with intestacy laws.

Nelia Silverio-Dee filed a Petition for Certiorari questioning the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order and, in particular, Ricardo Jr.’s appointment as administrator.
The Court of Appeals (CA) intervened with two significant resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196:

Granted a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the enforcement of the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order, and allowed Ricardo Sr. to remain as administrator pending further resolution.

ii. Required the posting of a bond amounting to PhP2,000,000.00 before issuance of the injunction.

Approved an increased bond of PhP10,000,000.00 submitted by the petitioner to secure the injunction.

ii. Continued to enjoin any enforcement actions stemming from the disputed order.

On September 3, 2007, Ricardo Jr. filed an appeal (G.R. No. 178676) under Rule 45 and/or Certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule 65, challenging the CA’s July 4, 2007 Resolution and seeking a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.
On June 13, 2008, Ricardo Jr. sent two demand letters:

The first letter demanded that Ricardo Sr. cease exercising rights and performing administrative duties related to PDC.
The second letter called for Lorna to vacate the house at Urdaneta Village.

On June 20, 2008, Ricardo Jr.—accompanied by his lawyers and unidentified individuals—attempted to forcibly evict occupants from the residence at 21 Cruzada, Urdaneta Village, creating a public disturbance. Intervention by homeowners association officers, barangay officials, and police eventually led to his withdrawal.

In response to the actions of Ricardo Jr., the petitioners filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt with the CA on June 25, 2008 (CA-G.R. SP No. 104060), charging that:

The June 13, 2008 letters and the evictions were acts of defiance against the CA’s rescinding resolutions.
Such actions violated established legal procedures and disrespectfully contravened Philippine customs and traditions.

On February 25, 2009, the CA dismissed the petition for indirect contempt on the ground that the pending appeal (G.R. No. 178676) questioned the same resolution and, thus, left the indirect contempt issue unresolved.

Whether the pendency of an appeal before the Supreme Court on the validity of the CA’s injunction (embodied in G.R. No. 178676) precludes the appellate court from addressing the charge of indirect contempt.
Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for indirect contempt on relying solely on the existence of a pending appeal, despite the absence of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction in the appeal.
Whether a respondent in a charge of indirect contempt may be convicted based on written pleadings alone without a hearing, in light of due process requirements.