EZEQUIEL S. CONSULTA, PETITIONER VS. THE HON. NICASIO YATCO, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is an original action for certiorari, with a petition for preliminary
injunction, filed by Ezequiel S. Consulta against the Hon. Nicasio Yatco, Judge
of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, and Heraclio A. del
Pilar who was made respondent by reason of his claim for attorney’s fees as
original counsel of the petitioners in Special Proceedings No. Q-453 of said
court.

The petition seeks firstly, to annul the order issued in said proceedings by
the respondent judge on September 12, 1959 finding petitioner guilty of
contempt, on the ground that it was issued without jurisdiction and with grave
abuse of discretion, and secondly, to secure judgment declaring that the
original and supplemental statements of accounts submitted by the executrix are
sufficient in form and substance, or, otherwise, that the respondent judge
should specify their alleged defects.

It appears that on November 8, 1958, in Special Proceedings No. Q-453
entitled “Intestate Estate of Marcelo de Castro, the respondent judge issued an
order requiring the executrix, Angelita de Castro, to file her statement of accounts within a period of 15 days. On November 21, 1958, the executrix, through
her counsel, the petitioner herein, filed the required statement, but the same
was disapproved by the respondent judge in his order of November 24, 1958 on the
ground that it was not verified and was not accompanied by corresponding
vouchers and receipts. The order gave the executrix five days from notice to
eomply with the order of November 8. Upon her failure to file an amended
statement of accounts the respondent judge, on motion of his co-respondent
issued the order of March 14, 1959 requiring the executrix to appear before him
to explain why she should not be held in contempt. In her reply to the motion
for contempt, the executrix explained that her failure to submit her amended
statement of accounts was due to the impossibility of attaching thereto the
numerous supporting vouchers and receipts, suggesting that, instead, she be
examined under oath on her accounting, said vouchers and receipts to be produced
in the course of her examination. After hearing the executrix, the respondent
judge issued another order on March 21, 1959, requiring her to comply with
the order of November 8, 1958 within a period of ten days. On March 30, 1959,
the executrix, through her counsel, filed a pleading entitled “Compliance”,
attaching thereto her statement of accounts, duly verified and supported by the
corresponding receipts and vouchers. Subsequently, a hearing was had on said
statement before a Commissioner appointed by the Court with the consent of the
parties.

On April 29, 1959, respondent judge issued another order requiring the
executrix to appear before the court to explain why she had secured a small loan
from the Development Bank of the Philippines without previous court authority,
and why she had failed to include in her accounting the income and/or losses
from the properties of the estate situated in Batangas and the drugstore in
Quezon City. Not satisfied with the explanation given by the executrix in
connection with the matters just referred to, the respondent judge, in open
court, found her guilty of contempt, and ordered her again to comply with the
order of April 29, 1959 and to explain why her bond should  not be
forfeited.

On June 17, 1959, the executrix, through her counsel, filed her “Compliance”
with the order of April 29, 1959, explaining anew that the small loan obtained
by her from the Development Bank of the Philippines was for administration
purposes and as such did not require previous authority of the court, and
stating further that the same was obtained without security and, therefore, no
properties of the estate were encumbered. With respect to the properties in
Batangas, she explained that their income and/or losses were not included in her
statement of accounts for the reason that said properties were in the possession
of third persons against whom legal action was contemplated; and with respect to
the drugstore in Quezon City, the executrix filed a verified supplementary
statement of accounts indicating the income and/or losses of the same. In the
course of the hearing held on said supplemental statement, respondent judge
stated that the same was not in conformity with his order of April 29, 1959,
without, however, specifying in what respects the statement was defective,
notwithstanding petitioner’s request, as counsel for the executrix, for
clarification, and issued another order requiring the executrix to file an
amended “Compliance” with the order of April 29, 1959 within ten days.

Other orders were thereafter issued requiring the executrix to comply
strictly with the order of April 29, 1959, with the executrix filing amended
compliances which were, however, held to be defective.

At the hearing held on September 12, 1959 in connection with the executrix’s
last amended “Compliance” submitted on the 9th of the same month, counsel for
respondent Del Pilar remarked that the amended compliance was not in accordance
with the order of April 29, 1959. In view of this, petitioner, as counsel for
the executrix, inquired from the respondent judge in what particulars the
amended compliance was defective, to which His Honor replied that petitioner had
no right to make such an inquiry and held him guilty of contempt for which he
was ordered to pay a fine of P20.00. The order is as follows:

“This is in connection with the Motion for Contempt which was postponed on
September 5, 1959 upon petition of counsel for administratrix, Atty. Ezequiel
Consulta, praying that the administratrix be declared in contempt of court for
her failure to comply with the order of this court accordingly.

“Instead of complying with the order of the court dated July 25, 1959,
however, counsel for the administratrix, Atty. Consulta, filed a pleading
captioned “Amended Compliance”, which, in effect, is not in accordance with the
explanation sought for in the said order and which counsel for administratrix
insisted to be so, notwithstanding the admonition by the court to the contrary.
As a matter of fact, the administratrix in this case has already been fined for
contempt of court by this court for the same reason, in the order of this court
of June 6, 1959.

“In view of this apparent failure of the herein counsel for administratrix,
Atty. Ezequiel Consulta, to comply with the order of this court as aforesaid,
the court herein fines him the sum of P20.00, with the corresponding subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency for contempt of court.

“In the meantime, let the hearing of the herein Motion for Contempt set for
today be postponed to next Saturday, September 19, 1959, at 8:30 in the morning,
at Quezon City.

“SO ORDERED.”

The above order of September 12, 1959 shows that petitioner was found guilty
of contempt for his “apparent failure” to comply with the order of the
respondent judge requiring the administratrix—petitioner’s client—to comply with
the order of the court dated July 25, 1959, which, in turn, required the
administratrix “to strictly comply with the order of April 29, 1959”.
This last order, as stated heretofore, required the administratrix to
explain why she had secured a small loan from the Development Bank of the
Philippines without previous authority from the court and why she had not
included in her accounting the income or losses from certain properties situated
in Batangas and a drugstore in Quezon City. It is thus obvious that the one
under obligation to comply with the orders aforesaid was not petitioner himself
but his client, the administratrix, who, as stated in the order of September 12,
1959, had already been fined for contempt for her failure to comply with the
dame orders of the court. Moreover, the hearing held on September 12, 1959 was
exclusively to have the admin istratrix explain why she should not be again
punished for contempt for her failure to comply with the order of July 25, 1959.
Petitioner only appeared as her counsel and had not been cited to appear to
explain why he should not be punished for contempt in connection with the same
matter.

Respondents contend that petitioner was found guilty of direct contempt
because in the course of the hearing held on September 12, 1959 he kept on
contending that the pleading entitled “Amended Compliance” was already in
accordance with the previous orders of the court, notwithstanding the statement
to the contrary made by the respondent judge. This—they claim—was “an exhibition
of disrespect toward the court”. This contention is belied, as already stated,
by the complained order itself, according to which the contemptuous act
allegedly committed by the petitioner was his “apparent failure” to submit, on
behalf of his client, a satisfactory explanation in connection with her failure
to secure court authority before obtaining a small loan from the Development
Bank of the Philippines and to include in her accounts the income of certain
properties belonging to the estate. It is clear, therefore, that petitioner was
not found guilty of any disrespectful conduct on his part during the
hearing.

On the other hand, the petition must fall insofar as it seeks to secure
judgment declaring that the original and supplemental accounts submitted by the
executrix are sufficient in form and substance. The petition itself alleges that
the respondent judge had refused to specify in detail the respects in which he
believed said statements of account to be not in conformity with his orders.
This being so, we are hot now in a position fairly to decide whether or not said
statements are in accordance with the orders in, question. Of necessity we need
to know definitely in what particular respects the respondent judge considered
them as incomplete or unsatisfactory before we could make a ruling on the
matter. It is our opinion, therefore, that in order to decide once and for all
the question of the accounts submitted by the executrix, it is highly desirable
that the respondent judge should specify the particular matters which, in his
opinion, made said statements of accounts not in accordance with his orders, and
give the executrix a reasonable time to introduce therein the corresponding
amendments. Thereafter, the statements of accounts may be examined as provided
by law to be thereafter approved or disapproved.

Wherefore, the order of September 12, 1959 finding petitioner guilty of
contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of P20.00 is hereby set aside, and it
is hereby ordered that the original and supplemental statements of accounts
submitted by the executrix be taken up for consideration below in accordance
with this decision.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.