G.R. No.

203336, June 06, 2016

SPOUSES GERARDO AND CORAZON TRINIDAD, petitioners

vs
FAMA REALTY, INC. AND FELIX ASSAD, respondents
(Rule 71)

FACTS:

This case esteemed up after a long series of complaints and oppositions between the
parties. It started when petitioners filed with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) an action for specific performance against FAMA and was duly granted. The
respondent interposed an appeal before the HLURB Board of Commissioners where the decision
was modified. Subsequently, the petitioners moved for reconsideration which the HLRUB Board
modified its decision. The respondents then filed an appeal with the Office of the President
which the latter denied for lack of merit, so does the motion for reconsideration. Respondent
appealed in the court on Petition for Review however it was denied..

Again, from February 27, 2009, another series of oppositions and cases were filed by the
parties. After 20 years of delayed execution due to unending litigation from the time the order of
execution was issued, the petitioner, on October 2, 2012, filed the present Petition before the
Supreme Court, praying that respondents be cited for indirect contempt for delaying the
execution of the HLURB Board's April 2, 1997 Decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for contempt is proper.

HELD:
The Court dismisses the Petition. Under the circumstances, petitioners should have
sought to cite respondents in contempt before the HLURB itself, and not this Court. Where
contempt is committed against quasi-judicial entities, the filing of contempt charges in court is
observed only when there is no law granting contempt powers to these quasi-judicial entities.
Under Section 12, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court on Contempt, it is thus provided:
Sec. 12. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities. - Unless otherwise provided by law, this
Rule shall apply to contempt committed against persons, entities, bodies or agencies exercising
quasi-judicial functions, or shall have suppletory effect to such rules as they may have adopted
pursuant to authority granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The Regional Trial Court of
the place wherein the contempt has been committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as
may be filed therefor.
The court reiterated the previous decision in Robosa v. National Labor Relations
Commission that where contempt is committed against quasi-judicial entities, the filing of
contempt charges in court is allowed only when these quasi-judicial entities are not by law
granted contempt powers. Section 81, Rule 22 of the 2011 HLURB Revised Rules of Procedure
Executive Order No. 648, the HLURB Charter, grants the HLURB Board the power to cite and
declare any person, entity or enterprise in direct or indirect contempt.