[ G.R. No. 27704. May 28, 1970 ] 144 Phil. 63
[ G.R. No. 27704. May 28, 1970 ]
IN THE MATTER OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RAFAEL MISON, JR., ABELARDO SUBIDO, COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, PETITIONER. D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
An appeal from the decision of the Court of instance of Manila, in Civil Cass No. 65332, denying the petition to declare respondent Rafael Mison, Jr., in contempt for failure to comply with petitioner’s subpoena.
The records of the case show that petitioner issued a subpoena in his capacity as Commissioner of Civil Service for respondent, an elective councilor of Quezon City, to appear at the former’s office at 10:00 o’clock A. M. on 27 April 1966. Respondent refused to receive the subpoena, which was served in the afternoon of the previous day, on the grounds, among others, that the issuance of the same was actuated with improper motives, and that, being an elective official, he falls under “exempt service”, pursuant to the last sentence of Section 3, Republic Act No. 2260 (otherwise known as the Civil Service Law of 1959),[1] in relation to Section 6[2] of the same law. Respondent contended that as such elective official, he could not be compelled to comply with the subpoena issued by petitioner. Petitioner sent another subpoena to respondent for the latter to appear at his office on 29 April 1966, but again respondent refused to comply on the same grounds.
The subject matter of both subpoenas was the Civil service Memorandum. Circular No. 45, s. 1964, regarding “Temporary assignment of personnel in the government offices”, which, in this particular case, involved the detail of Quezon City policemen to guard members of the City Council.
Petitioner, on the other hand, based his power to issue the subpoena upon Section 16 (g)[3] of the above Civil Service Law. Petitioner claimed that this authority to issue the subpoena is operative in conjunction with certain powers and duties reposed in him by law, which is specifically Section 16 (f) and (j) of Republic Act No. 2260.[4] Petitioner prayed that respondent be punished for contempt in view of his repeated refusal to obey the subpoena. Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code[5] is invoked.
The lower court exonerated respondent from the contempt charge; hence this appeal.
It has been held that a “contempt proceeding” is not a “civil action” but is a separate proceeding of a criminal nature and of summary character in which the court exercises but limited jurisdiction.[6] A charge for contempt of court partakes of the nature of a criminal action[7] even when the act complained of is an incident of a civil action.[8] As such, the mode of procedure and rules of evidence in contempt proceedings are assimilated as fat as practicable to those adapted to criminal prosecutions.[9] Therefore, a judgment in contempt proceedings is subject to review only in the manner provided for review of Judgments in criminal cases.[10] In fact, Section 10 of the Rules of Court provides that the appeal in contempt proceedings may be taken as in criminal cases. Hence, as in criminal proceedings, an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court.[11]
As already seen in Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, supra, “…………. any one who, without lawful excuse, fails to appear upon summons issued …… shall be subject to discipline as in case of contempt of court …….. " Former Chief Justice Moran, in his Commentaries on the Rules of Court,[12] and citing the case of Villanueva vs. Lim, supra said that “In cases of criminal contempt, punished by law with imprisonment or fine, or both, there is no doubt that if the alleged condemner was acquitted of the charge, no appeal lies from such acquittal, the proceedings being of a penal nature”. Rule 71, specifically its Section 6,[13] in relation to Section 3,[14] of the Rules of Court punishes indirect contempt such as the one charged in this case with imprisonment or fine, or both.
It has thus become unnecessary to examine the merits of appellant’s assignments of error.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the herein appeal is dismissed. Without costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur. Ruiz Castro, and Teehankee, JJ., took no part.