1/5/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
and the settlement of their properties be made.
On June 30, 2015, while the Dissolution case was pending, petitioner filed with the
RTC-Tagum a Motion (To Order Defendant Alma N. Balinon to Account) [11] (Motion to
Account) praying that respondent be ordered to account all the proceeds of their closed
businesses and sold properties. The RTC-Tagum directed respondent to file a comment
on the motion. However, despite the 15-day extension period granted her, respondent
failed to file her comment.
Subsequently, petitioner filed Motion to Direct [Respondent] to Comply with the Order
of the Court[12] stating that respondent's failure to file a comment and to make an
account was an act of disobedience to the lawful order of the court. Thus, he prayed
that respondent be given a final warning to render an accounting on their common
properties under pain of contempt should she defy the court's order.
In its Order[13] dated December 2, 2015, the RTC-Tagum directed respondent to
explain why she should not be sanctioned for her failure to comply with the directive of
the court within a period of five days. In the same order, it granted respondent a period
of 15 days to make an accounting and declared that her failure to do so shall constrain
the court to admit the allegations in petitioner's Motion to Account and to dispose of the
properties therein enumerated.[14]
On June 8, 2016, petitioner led a Motion for Resolution.[15] He declared that
respondent was still unable to submit for accounting their common properties.
Consequently, he prayed for the RTC-Tagum to issue an order citing her in contempt of
court and to resolve his Motion to Account.
Ruling of the RTC-Tagum
In the Resolution[16] dated August 15, 2016, the RTC-Tagum found respondent guilty of
indirect contempt. It imposed against her the penalty of imprisonment for a period of
15 days and ordered her to pay a fine in the amount of P30,000.00.[17] The RTC-Tagum
likewise ordered, among other matters, that the properties enumerated in petitioner's
Motion to Account be forfeited in his favor.
Respondent moved for a reconsideration, but her motion was denied in the RTCTagum's Order[18] dated September 6, 2016.
Undeterred, respondent filed a notice of appeal.[19]
In an Order[20] dated September 28, 2016, the RTC-Tagum denied due course
respondent's notice of appeal. It held that its Resolution dated August 15, 2016 was an
interlocutory order and as such, could not be subject of an appeal. Hence, respondent
flied a petition for certiorari[21] with the CA.
Ruling of the CA
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967
2/11