1/5/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In Arriola, et al. v. Arriola (Arriola),[44] the Court emphasized that the indirect contempt, not initiated by the court motu proprio, must be commenced by a verified petition. It ratiocinated that even if the contempt proceedings emanated from a principal case, still, the governing rules require that a petition be filed and treated independently of the main action. It stressed that it is beyond doubt that the requirement of a verified petition in initiating an indirect contempt proceeding is a mandatory requirement quoting the Court's earlier pronouncement in Regalado v. Go, [45] viz.: xxxx Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu propio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the requirements therefore and shall be disposed in accordance with the second paragraph of this section. xxxx Even if the contempt proceedings stemmed from the main case over which the court already acquired jurisdiction, the rules direct that the petition for contempt be treated independently of the principal action. Consequently, the necessary prerequisites for the filing of initiatory pleadings, such as the filing of a verified petition, attachment of a certification on non-forum shopping, and the payment of the necessary docket fees, must be faithfully observed. [46] (Emphasis in the original.) Like in Arriola, the indirect contempt charge against respondent was initiated by petitioner's mere motion; thus, without compliance with the mandatory requirements under Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, not only did petitioner fail to file a verified petition, he, likewise, did not comply with the requirements for the filing of initiatory pleadings. This being so, the RTC-Tagum had improperly taken cognizance of the charge and conversely, it should have dismissed the motion. Interlocutory order, final judgment; distinguished. Petitioner also faults the CA in finding that the RTC-Tagum committed grave abuse of discretion in denying respondent's notice of appeal. He argues that the denial of the notice of appeal was proper because the Resolution relative to the court's pronouncement which (a) found respondent guilty of indirect contempt, and (b) ordered the forfeiture of the subject properties in favor of the petitioner was an interlocutory order; hence, not appealable. We disagree. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967 7/11