People of the Philippines v. Nestor Guevarra y Valmonte"

Ruling

WHEREFORE, for failure of Atty. Salome Cañas to produce [the] accused in Court, the release of [the] vehicle is hereby recalled. Said Order was sent to Atty. Salome Cañas but up to the present, said counsel has not surrendered the vehicle nor has she produced the accused in Court as condition for the release of said vehicle in blatant defiance of the Court Order dated September 11, 1996. On the same date, respondent judge issued an order setting the aforementioned motion of respondent prosecutor for hearing on October 8, 1996 at 8:30 a.m. [11] As what happened to the two Orders of August 14, 1996 and September 11, 1996 earlier issued, respondent judge's Order dated September 26, 1996 was never received by petitioner because the address was "c/o Pepsi Cola, Phils., San Fernando Plant ." Owing to the incorrect address indicated in the envelope containing the September 26, 1996 Order, petitioner failed to attend the hearing set on October 8, 1996. During the proceedings on said date, Adelina Palomo-Medina, the wife of petitioner's client, informed the court that petitioner was abroad and would be back by the end of November 1996. Respondent judge noted that there was no return of service allegedly sent to petitioner and thus, in open court, reset the hearing to December 3, 1996 at 8:30 a.m. [12] Again on account of the incorrect address indicated on the envelope, petitioner was unable to receive a copy of the October 8, 1996 Order and thus was not able to attend the December 3, 1996 hearing. At the scheduled hearing, respondent judge issued an Order considering the motion to declare petitioner in contempt of court submitted for resolution. [13] On December 5, 1996, respondent judge issued the challenged order finding petitioner guilty of indirect contempt of court, imposing on her a fine of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) and ordering her imprisonment for thirty (30) days. [14] On the same day, respondent judge issued a warrant for petitioner's arrest. [15] On January 7, 1997, petitioner filed a "Motion to Lift Warrant of Arrest, Motion to Set Aside Order dated December 5, 1996; and Motion for Reconsideration of Orders dated August 14, 1996; and September 11, 1996." [16] Fearing that she would be arrested any time because of the warrant of arrest which was not recalled by respondent judge, petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari on January 15, 1997, which was subsequently amended on January 17, 1997. [17] On May 28, 1999, the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals promulgated its assailed Decision sustaining the Order of respondent judge. A motion for reconsideration thereto was subsequently denied by the appellate court in its assailed Resolution of August 24, 1999. Hence, this petition on the following grounds: THE COURT OF APPEALS DISREGARDED WELL-DEFINED PRINCIPLES IN THE APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL LAW WHEN IT DISREGARDED HIGHER INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND THE PRESENCE OF COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IT HELD THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES DID NO