The court has junked the petition of Barangay Day-as Sangguniang Kabataan chairperson Rafonzel Quijano to cite in contempt Day-as Barangay Captain Michael Ocleasa and the members of the barangay council.
Judge Geraldine Faith Econg of Regional Trial Court Branch 9 gave weight to the respondents’ arguments that they were not properly informed that Quijano had filed a case against them at that time a temporary restraining order was served to them.
The court issued the TRO in April 2005 to refrain the respondents from implementing Resolution No. 005CY-05 and from any acts that would deprive Quijano of her right to exercise her duties and responsibilities as barangay chairperson of the SK.
The council then had decided to drop Quijano from the council due to her alleged failure to attend council sessions.
But Quijano said that except for Antonio Cabrillas, Ocleasa and the council failed to heed the TRO, thus, should be cited in contempt.
But Econg said because the summons were not yet served to the respondents, the court had not acquired jurisdiction over them, “therefore, the courts could not effectively command the respondents to comply with their orders.”
She said the respondents could not be cited in contempt even if they refused to comply with the order of the court.
“In the instant case, it was established by respondents that they were not informed of the pendency of a case initiated by petitioner against them, as they were not served with summons yet. Therefore, it could be surmised that respondents were yet unaware of the charges or the case against them and that there is a court, which will hear the controversy between petitioner and respondents,” Econg said.
In their answer, the respondents argued that the TRO was not served properly, as there was no prior nor even a contemporaneous service of summons.
They also alleged that Quijano is guilty of forum shopping because she filed two identical petitions in court. Likewise, the petition allegedly violated the Rules of Court because Quijano filed the petition to have them cited for contempt not in the court that issued the TRO. — Joeberth M. Ocao/LPM