04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Respondent further posits that if petitioner believes that he committed an error in issuing his orders and resolutions, there are judicial remedies provided by law. Thus, petitioner could have filed a motion for reconsideration of the assailed orders and resolutions or a petition for review if such motion for reconsideration is denied. Petitioner likewise could have filed a motion for inhibition or a request for change of venue if it feels that valid ground exists to warrant the same. The sole issue to be resolved is whether the respondent should be cited in contempt of court for issuing the subject temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction. We rule in the affirmative. The applicable provision is Section 3 of Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which states: SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt: xxxx b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; x x x x (Emphasis supplied.) Contempt of court is defined as a disobedience to the Court by acting in opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful disregard or disobedience of the court’s orders, but such conduct which tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice party litigants or their witnesses during litigation.[26] The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice.[27] Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised, however, such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.[28] The court must exercise the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly, with utmost selfrestraint, with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.[29] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56526 4/11