Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Marcelino E. Rodriguez G.R. No.

160270 April 23, 2010 SECOND DIVISION; Carpio, J.: FACTS: On the basis of the declared value of US$6,000 of a cargo described as agricultural product, the shipment, which arrived at the Port of Subic was assessed customs duties and taxes. Upon examination, the subject shipment was found to contain rice. The importer of the cargo stated that there was a misshipment of cargo which actually contained rice. She then requested that the misshipment be upgraded from agricultural product to a shipment of rice, and at the same time manifested willingness to pay the appropriate duties and taxes. However, hold orders were issued. A certification/letter was later issued by Fertony G. Marcelo, Officer-in-charge of he Cash Division of the Customs Subic Port, however, SBMA, through Seaport Department General Manager Augusto Canlas refused to allow the release of the rice shipment. Thus, a complaint for Injunction and Damages was filed with prayer for issuance of Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order against petitioner SBMA and Augusto L. Canlas, with the RTC of Olongapo City. The injunctive relief was granted. A copy of the complaint with summons together with the TRO was served by Sheriff upon the defendants/respondents on the same day. When the Sheriffs went back to defendants/respondents office to determine whether or not the TRO was followed, defendants/respondents Attys. Abella and Katalbas refused to honor the TRO, alleging that said Order was illegal. This led to the filing in the instant case a verified indirect contempt charge because of the defiance exhibited. The defendants/respondents alleged that they cannot be cited for contempt of court because they had legal basis to refuse to honor the TRO: that it is the Bureau of Customs that has jurisdiction, thus, the indirect contempt case has no leg to stand on. The RTC found the defendants/respondents guilty of indirect contempt. The CA dismissed the petition, hence, this appeal under Rule 45. ISSUE: Was the indirect contempt conviction proper? HELD: No. Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure includes, among the grounds for filing a case for indirect contempt, are the following: Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge, any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court not constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this rule; any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. The SBMA officers may be considered to have acted in good faith when they refused to follow the TRO issued by the RTC. The SBMA officers' refusal to follow the court order was not contumacious but due to the honest belief that jurisdiction over the subject shipment remained with the BOC because of the existing warrant of seizure and detention against said shipment. Thus, we hold that the RTC Order dated 21 November 2002 which found the SBMA officers guilty of indirect contempt for not complying with the RTC's TRO should be invalidated.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen