CONRADO VICTORINO, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES VS. PRIMITIVO ESPIRITU, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

Conrado Victorino, et al. filed on February 11, 1959 a petition
before the Court of Agrarian Relations praying for the liquidation of
their crop for the agricultural year 1958-1959 as tenants of Primitivo
Espiritu based on a 75-25 ratio in their favor contrary to the
liquidation made between them in previous years. They prayed that,
pending termination of the case, a provisional liquidation of the crop
be made by delivering 50% thereof to petitioners and 25% to respondent,
depositing the balance of 25% in a bonded warehouse subject to future
disposition. This interlocutory petition was granted. Since respondent
failed to appear or answer the petition, he was declared in default on
August 20, 1959. Thereupon, after the reception of petitioners’
evidence, the court rendered decision, which was later amended,
granting the liquidation of the crop for the agricultural year 19581959
on the basis of a sharing ratio which is warranted by the equities of
both petitioners and respondent, and after a portion of the proceeds of
the palay deposited had been delivered to petitioners in partial
satisfaction of the judgment rendered in their favor, a deficiency
judgment of P320.53 resulted in favor of petitioners.

On September 22, 1959, a writ of execution was issued for the
payment of this deficiency judgment. The sheriff levied on some
personal properties which allegedly belonged to respondent, but after
said levy was effected, a third party claim was filed by one Eliseo
Espiritu, which was however stayed because of an indemnity bond filed
by petitioners. Then the sale was restrained in view of an injunction
issued in an action taken by Eliseo Espiritu against the sheriff before
the Court of First Instance of Rizal.

The writ of execution having been foiled, petitioners filed a
petition before the agrarian court for the examination of respondent to
determine if he had some other properties that may be subject to
execution pursuant to Section 34, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court. This
petition was granted. And after the examination of respondent, the
agrarian court, on May 19,1960, issued an order directing respondent to
pay to petitioners the deficiency judgment of P320.53 in monthly
installments of P50.00 beginning June 1, 1960 intimating therein that
said installments should be paid to the clerk of court who in turn
should turn them over to the judgment creditors. .

Despite the fact that respondent has been notified of the aforesaid
order, he failed to comply therewith by not paying the first
installment on June 1, 1960, whereupon, petitioners filed a motion
praying that he be declared in contempt; and acceding to this request,
the court required respondent to appear before it on July 6, 1960 to
show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Respondent
appeared before the court as bidden, and the reasons he has given being
unsatisfactory, the court declared him guilty. As a consequence, the
court ordered his confinement in the city jail of Manila until he
complies with its order of May 19, 1960.

Respondent interposed the present appeal.

The issues posed by appellant are: (1) Whether or not process for
contempt to enforce compliance with a judgment will lie if payment can
be enforced by execution; (2) Whether or not the failure of appellant
to pay the judgment due to financial incapacity is contemptuous; and
(3) Whether or not payment of a judgment can be enforced by compulsory
process of contempt.

It should be noted that when the deficiency judgment entered
against appellant was rendered unsatisfied because the writ of
execution levied by the sheriff upon certain personal properties
belonging to said appellant became ineffective as a result of an
injunction issued in an independent action, appellees filed a motion
for the examination of appellant under Section 34, Rule 39, of the
Rules of Court, and after said examination was made, the court, making
use of its discretion, ordered appellant to pay the deficiency judgment
in monthly installments of P50.00 beginning June 1,1960. And when
appellant failed to comply with said order, the court declared him in
contempt and ordered his confinement in the city jail until he complies
with the aforesaid order, invoking Section 38, Rule 39, which we quote:

“SEC. 88. Order for application of property and income to satisfaction of judgment.—The
judge may order any property of the judgment debtor, or money due him,
not exempt from execution, in the hands of either himself or other
person, or of a corporation or other legal entity, to be applied to the
satisfaction of the judgment, subject to any prior rights of the
holders of such property: and if, Upon an investigation of his current
income and expenses, it appears that the earnings of the judgment
debtor for his personal services are more than is necessary for the
support of his family, the judge may order that he pay the judgment in
fixed monthly, installments, and upon his failure to pay any such
installment when due without good excuse may punish him for contempt.”

Indeed, it would appear that, upon the authority of the above
provision, the court may, upon an investigation of the current income
and expense of a judgment debtor, order that he pay the judgment in
fixed monthly installments, and upon his failure to pay any installment
without good excuse, may punish him for contempt if it appears that his
earnings are more than necessary for the support of his family.

The question to be determined is: Is the agrarian court justified
in resorting to such coercive measure considering the financial
condition of appellant as was brought out in the course of his
examination?

The agrarian court in its order of May 19, 1960 found that
appellant is possessed of real and personal properties which were
giving him a total net income of about P600.00 a month. As broken down,
the real properties are:

“1. the landholdings in question (9 balitangs)—located at Matalbak, Bagumbayan, Quezon City;

2. lot (about 1/2 hectare) and the house thereon—located at Santolan, Pasig, Rizal;

3. lot (about more than 1 hectare used for sand and soil business)—located at Santolan, Pasig, Rizal”

And the income that he derives therefrom is:

“1. about more than 100 cavans of palay as share from the landholdings in question;

2. about P10.00 a day from his sand and soil business;

3. produce from his lease from the Mandaluyong Estate for which he pays a rental of P700.00 a year;

4. P210.00 a month as pension as former Philippine Constabulary personnel.”

Note that the above properties were not included among those that
were levied in execution when the sheriff proceeded to carry out the
writ issued by the agrarian court, for the only properties levied upon
were personal in nature which consist of the following:

One (1) Piano Arsonic)

Three (3) Upholstered sofas, and

One (1) Upholstered armchair.

Considering that the deficiency judgment only amounts to P320.53,
there is indeed reason to believe that an alias writ of execution could
still be issued for its satisfaction. the remaining properties of
appellant being more than sufficient to pay off such judgment even if
we deduct the portion exempt by Law from execution. The foregoing shows
that the claim that the agrarian court has improperly exercised its
discretion in ordering his confinement despite other available legal
remedies is not entirely devoid of merit. .

It may be well to emphasize once more that courts should be slow in
jailing people for non-compliance with their orders and judgments. Only
in cases of dear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be
exercised. The power to punish for contempt should be sparingly
exercised. The power ” ‘should be exercised on the preservative and not
on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally should the court invoke
its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the
administration of justice must falter or fail.’ Such power being
‘drastic and extraordinary in its nature * * * should not be resorted
to * * * unless necessary in the interest of justice.’ “^[1]

Wherefore, the order of the agrarian court dated September 26,1960
is hereby modified in the sense that, instead of ordering appellant’s
confinement in jail, an order should be entered directing that an alias
writ of execution be issued for the satisfaction of the deficiency
judgment having in view the remaining properties of appellant. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Lukban 39 Phil., 778 17 C.J.S., p. 58.