Remedy from order of direct contempt
If it is established that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing an order of direct
contempt, the person cited in contempt is entitled to the remedy of
prohibition under Section 2, Rule 71 of the Rules on Contempt which provides:
According to the Supreme Court, an order of
direct contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemnor must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge
himself of the contempt. Where the person adjudged in direct contempt by any
court avails of the remedy of certiorari or prohibition, the
execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such
petition provided the contemnor files a bond fixed by the court
which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform
the judgment should the petition be decided against him.[2]
SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. - The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.[1]
According to the Supreme Court, an order of
direct contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemnor must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge
himself of the contempt. Where the person adjudged in direct contempt by any
court avails of the remedy of certiorari or prohibition, the
execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such
petition provided the contemnor files a bond fixed by the court
which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform
the judgment should the petition be decided against him.[2][1] https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2021/08/gr-no-190171-march-14-2011.html.
[2] Tiongco v. Salao, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 575, 583, citing Oclarit v. Paderanga, 403 Phil 146, 152 (2001).