Ocampo v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved Miguel Ocampo's alleged illegal detention of a property and his failure to pay accrued rentals. Respondent Liberato S. Domingo sought to enforce a writ of execution to recover possession of the premises and outstanding payments. 2. Procedural History: Following the issuance of a writ of execution by the City Judge of Davao City, petitioner Ocampo was served on May 20, 1967. He promised the sheriff to vacate the premises and pay rentals by June 10, 1967. Subsequently, on June 7, 1967, Ocampo filed a petition with the Supreme Court alleging he had not been served summons or a copy of the complaint and decision, claiming the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court issued a restraining order based on these allegations. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Ocampo, through counsel Atty. Tomas S. Macasaet, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging lack of due process. The petition was verified by Ocampo, who had previously promised to vacate the premises by June 10, 1967, after being served with the writ of execution. The Supreme Court found the petition to be sham, noting Ocampo's false representations and his counsel's failure to verify the allegations, leading to the issuance of a restraining order based on misleading information. The Court subsequently issued contempt citations against both petitioner and his counsel.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is guilty of contempt of court for filing a sham petition based on false representations. Whether petitioner's counsel, Atty. Tomas S. Macasaet, is guilty of contempt of court for failing to exercise due diligence and candor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the petitioner guilty of contempt of court, imposing a fine of P500.00 and sentencing him to thirty (30) days imprisonment. The Court also found petitioner's counsel, Atty. Tomas S. Macasaet, guilty of contempt of court, imposing a fine of P100.00 and admonishing him with a warning. Both fines were ordered to be paid within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of petitioner's contempt: The Court found that the petitioner deliberately misled the Supreme Court by filing a sham petition. His claim of not being served summons was contradicted by his written undertaking to the sheriff to vacate the premises and pay rentals by a specific date, which was made after the writ of execution was served. This conduct constituted a wilful commission of falsehood and a deceptive tactic to delay the execution of a lawful verdict, thereby degrading the administration of justice. The Court stressed that such actions warrant punishment for contempt. On the issue of counsel's contempt: The Court acknowledged Atty. Macasaet's explanation that he was misled by his client. However, the Court found that he failed to live up to his exacting responsibility as an officer of the court. Specifically, upon receipt of the respondent's documented answer, he did not verify the allegations with his client and file the necessary rectification of the false claims in the petition. This failure allowed the sham petition to proceed, wasting the Court's time. While found guilty of contempt, mitigating circumstances, including his client's deception and his untarnished record, led the Court to impose only a fine and an admonition with a warning, rather than further disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A party who files a sham petition, misleading the Court into issuing a restraining order based on false representations, is guilty of contempt of court. Counsel who fails to exercise due diligence to ascertain the truth of allegations in a petition, especially upon receipt of responsive pleadings, may also be held in contempt.