EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-2349. October 22, 1948.]

FRED M. HARDEN , petitioner, vs . THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS ,
respondent.

Vicente J. Francisco for petitioner.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Felix V.
Makasiar for respondent.
Claro M. Recto for the intervenor.
SYLLABUS
1.
HABEAS CORPUS; GROUNDS FOR RELIEF. "Broadly speaking, the
grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1) deprivation of any fundamental or
constitutional rights, (2) lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the sentence, or (3)
excessive penalty." (Santiago vs. Director of Prisons, 1 L-1083, January 30, 1947, 44 Off.
Gaz., 1231.)
2.
CONFLICT OF LAWS; RECEIVER, AUTHORITY TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO
PROPERTY BEYOND TERRITORIAL LIMIT. While a court can not give its receiver
authority to act in another state without the assistance of the courts thereof (53 C. J.,
390-391), yet it may act directly upon the parties before it with respect to property
beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, and hold them in contempt if they resist
the court's orders with reference to its custody or disposition (id., 118). Whether the
property was removed before or after the appointment of the receiver is likewise
immaterial.
3.
CONTEMPT; PUNISHMENT FOR CONTEMPT IS NEITHER CRUEL NOR
EXCESSIVE. Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but
the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the
constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than
the mere extinguishment of life. The punishment meted out to the petitioner is not
excessive. It is suitable and adapted to its objective; and it accords with section 7, Rule
64, of the Rules of Court which provides that "When the contempt consists in the
omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may be
imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it."
4.
ID.; TERM OF IMPRISONMENT IS LEFT OPEN FOR PETITIONER TO
TERMINATE. If the term of imprisonment in this case is indefinite and might last
through the natural life of the petitioner, yet by the terms of the sentence the way is left
open for him to avoid serving any part of it by complying with the orders of the court,
and in this manner put an end to his incarceration. In these circumstances, the
judgment can not be said to be excessive or unjust.
5.

ID.; INDICATION IN COMMITMENT THAT CONTEMNER CAN STILL

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

PERFORM THE ACT IS NOT REQUIRED. The failure of the order of commitment to
state that the acts which the contemner fails to do are still in his power to perform,
does not void the order of imprisonment. Section 7 of Rule 64 does not require such
finding to appear in the order.
6.
ID.; SOURCE OR ORIGIN OF SECTION 7 OF RULE 64 INDICATED. Former
Justice F is authority for the statement that section 237 of Act No. 190 was borrowed
from section 1456 of the Ohio Code of Civil Procedure. (Fisher's Code of Civil
Procedure, 3d ed., p. 136.) The exact similarity in substance though not in language
between the two provisions is a confirmation of this statement.
7.
HABEAS CORPUS; WRIT DOES NOT LIE TO CORRECT ERRORS OF FACT OR
LAW. Whether or not in truth the court's findings are supported by sufficient evidence
is a different matter; it is a matter of fact which can not be reviewed by habeas corpus.
In a long line of decisions, this court has steadfastly held that habeas corpus does not
lie to correct errors of fact or law.
8.
ID.; WRIT CANNOT BE USED AS A WRIT OF ERROR. When a court has
jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the party who is so charged, its judgment,
order or decree is not subject to collateral attack by habeas corpus. The writ of habeas
corpus can not be made to perform the function of a writ of error; and this holds true
even if the judgment, order or decree was erroneous, provided it is within the
jurisdiction of the court which rendered such judgment or issued such an order or
decree.
DECISION
TUASON , J :
p

The petitioner, Fred M. Harden, is being con ned in prison for contempt of court
by virtue of an order of the following tenor:
"It appearing that the defendant Fred M. Harden has not up to this date
complied with the orders of this court of October 7, 1947 and March 27, 1948;
"As prayed for, the court orders the arrest of the defendant Fred M. Harden
as well as his confinement at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal, until he
complies with the aforementioned orders."

The proceeding for contempt arose in a civil case between Mrs. Harden as
plaintiff and the petitioner and another person as defendants, commenced on July 12,
1941, and involving the administration of a conjugal partnership, payment of alimony,
and accounting. In that case, a receiver was appointed and a preliminary injunction was
issued restraining Fred M. Harden and his codefendant, Jose Salumbides, from
transferring or alienating, except for a valuable consideration and with the consent of
the court rst had and obtained, moneys, shares of stock, and other properties and
assets, real or personal, belonging to the aforesaid partnership, and which might be
found in the names of said defendants or either of them.
On various dates in 1946, Fred M. Harden transferred to the Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation and the Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China, both
in Hongkong, over P1,000,000 in drafts or cash; to Virginia Recreation Center, Long
Beach, California, P20,196.80, and to an unknown person, P50,000.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

On September 9, 1947, Mrs. Harden moved the court to order Harden to return all
these amounts and to redeposit them with the Manila branch of the Chartered Bank of
India, Australia & China. On October 7, 1947, Judge Pea granted the motion in an order
worded as follows:
"Wherefore, finding the motion of the plaintiff of September 9, 1947, to be
well founded, for the purpose of preserving the status quo and in order that the
amounts above referred to may stand ready to answer for any legitimate claims
of the Government in the form of taxes, the aforementioned motion is hereby
granted and defendant Fred M. Harden is hereby ordered to return, within a period
of 15 days from the receipt of a copy hereof, the amount of P1,000,608.66 to the
Philippines and to redeposit the same with the accounts of the Plaza Lunch at the
Manila Branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China, with the
understanding that upon failure to comply with this order he will be declared in
contempt of court."

After a petition for certiorari was instituted by Harden in the Supreme Court and
decided, and after various motions were led and heard, Judge Pea, on March 27,
1948, entered an order, which was a modi cation of that of October 7, 1947, directing
Harden "to deposit with the Manila Branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia &
China within ve days from receipt of a copy of this order the money and drafts that he
has actually in Hongkong, without prejudice to passing upon later on the different
amounts that the defendant has spent according to his attorney, after he has submitted
to the court an itemized account of those expenses."
In the same order there was this decree:
"With respect to the plaintiff's motion filed on March 16, 1948 praying that
Fred M. Harden be ordered to deliver the certificate covering the 368,553 Balatoc
Mining Company shares either to the Clerk of this Court or to the receiver in this
case for safekeeping after his compliance with the order of January 17, 1948, the
Court, after considering the different pleadings filed, denies defendant's motion
for extension of time to register the said certificate of stock, thereby maintaining
its order of January 17, 1948. The said defendant is further ordered, after the
registration of the said certificate, to deposit the same with the Manila Branch of
the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China."

The last part of the order was the culmination of another series of motions with
their corresponding hearings. The facts taken from the pleading were in brief as
follows:
In a motion dated May 28, 1947, the receiver appointed in the main case prayed
that the certi cates of stock of the conjugal partnership, among them 368,553 shares
of the Balatoc Mining Co., alleged to be in the possession of defendant Harden, be
ordered turned over to him (receiver) so that he might have them registered in
pursuance of the provisions of Republic Act No. 62. On June 7, 1947, the court
"authorized" Harden "to register not later than June 30, 1947 the stock certificates in his
possession, notifying the court afterwards of such action."
On July 28, 1947, Mrs. Harden complained that her husband failed to comply with
the above order and prayed that he be ordered to show cause why he should not be
declared in contempt. On August 1, 1947, Harden led a perfunctory compliance, and in
an order dated August 2, 1947, he was required to "make a detailed report of the stock
certi cates which have been duly registered in accordance with Republic Act No. 62." In
his "compliance" dated August 7, 1947, Harden stated that he had been granted an
extension until December 31, 1947, within which to register the Balatoc Mining Co.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

shares under Republic Act No. 62.

In a motion dated January 7, 1948, the receiver informed the court that,
notwithstanding the expiration on December 31, 1947, of Harden's extended time to
comply with Republic Act No. 62, the records of the Balatoc Mining Co. showed that the
certi cates had not been registered as of January 7, 1948; and upon his request, an
order dated January 17, 1948, was issued giving Harden "an extension until March 31,
1948 within which to comply with the Order dated June 7, 1947."
In a motion dated March 15, 1948, Mrs. Harden prayed, for the reasons therein
stated, that defendant Harden "be ordered to deliver the certi cates covering the
368,553 Balatoc Mining Co. shares either to the Clerk of this Court or to the Receiver
herein for safekeeping, immediately after registering them pursuant to Republic Act No.
62." On March 24, 1948, Harden led a motion stating that the registration of shares of
stock under Republic Act No. 62 had been extended until June 30, 1948, and prayed
that he "be allowed to register the stock certi cates in question within such period as
by law or regulations is or may be provided."
It was at this stage of the case that the present petitioner was committed to jail.
Broadly speaking, the grounds for relief by habeas corpus are only (1)
deprivation of any fundamental or constitutional rights, (2) lack of jurisdiction of the
court to impose the sentence, or (3) excessive penalty. (Santiago vs. Director of
Prisons, 1 L-1083, Jan. 30, 1947, 44 Off. Gaz., 1231.)
The fact that the property is in a foreign country is said to deprive the court of
jurisdiction, the remedy in such case being, it is contended, ancillary receivership. We
can not agree with this view.
While a court can not give its receiver authority to act in another state without the
assistance of the courts thereof (53 C. J., 390-391), yet it may act directly upon the
parties before it with respect to property beyond the territorial limits of its jurisdiction,
and hold them in contempt if they resist the court's orders with reference to its custody
or disposition (Id. 118).
Whether the property was removed before or after the appointment of the
receiver is likewise immaterial.
In Sercomb vs. Catlin, 21 N. E., 606-608, the Supreme Court of Illinois said:
"It is true that the property attached is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts
of this state, but the appellant, who caused it to be attached, is in this state, and
within the jurisdiction of its courts. If the superior court had no power to reach the
goods in Newton's hands, it had the power to reach appellant, who sought to
prevent its receiver from getting possession of the goods. It makes no difference
that the property was in a foreign jurisdiction."

The facts of that case as stated in the decision were as follows:

"On April 14, 1887, in the case of Ada S. Havens et al. vs. Caleb Clapp et al.
then pending in said superior court, the appellee was appointed receiver of all the
property and effects, real and personal, of the defendants therein, Caleb Clapp
and Thomas Davies. Prior to that date Clapp and Davies had forwarded, on
consignment, to Elijah E. Newton, an auctioneer and commission merchant in
Washington city, in the District of Columbia, a lot of jewelry, watches and
silverware, to be by him disposed of for their benefit. So far as appears to the
contrary, the goods so consigned were still in the possession of Newton at
Washington when the order was entered on April 7, 1887, for the commitment of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

appellant for contempt. Within a week or 10 days after his appointment as

receiver, appellee gave notice of such appointment to Newton, and demanded a
return of the goods. On May 18, 1887, the Meriden Britannia Company, a
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut, being a creditor
of Clapp and Davies, commenced an attachment suit against them for the
amount of its claim in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and
attached the goods in the hands of Newton."

The penalty complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. In Ex-parte

Kemmler, 136 U. S., 436, the United States Supreme Court said that "punishments are
cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not
cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of
life."
The punishment meted out to the petitioner is not excessive. It is suitable and
adapted to its objective; and it accords with section 7, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court
which provides that "when the contempt consists in the omission to do an act which is
yet in the power of the accused to perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a
superior court until he performs it."
If the term of imprisonment in this case is inde nite and might last through the
natural life of the petitioner, yet by the terms of the sentence the way is left open for
him to avoid serving any part of it by complying with the orders of the court, and in this
manner put an end to his incarceration. In these circumstances, the judgment can not
be said to be excessive or unjust. (Davis vs. Murphy [1947], 188 P., 2nd, 229-231.) As
stated in a more recent case (De Wees [1948], 210 S. W., 2d, 145-147), "to order that
one be imprisoned for an inde nite period in a civil contempt is purely a remedial
measure. Its purpose is to coerce the contemner to do an act within his or her power to
perform. He must have the means by which he may purge himself of the contempt." The
latter decision cites Staley vs. South Jersey Realty Co., 83 N. J. Eq., 300, 90 A., 1042,
1043, in which the theory is expressed in this language:
"In a 'civil contempt' the proceeding is remedial, it is a step in the case the
object of which is to coerce one party for the benefit of the other party to do or to
refrain from doing some act specified in the order of the court. Hence, if
imprisonment be ordered, it is remedial in purpose and coercive in character, and
to that end must relate to something to be done by the defendant by the doing of
which he may discharge himself. As quaintly expressed, the imprisoned man
'carries the keys to his prison in his own pocket.' "

The failure of the order of commitment to state that the acts which the
contemner fails to do are still in his power to perform, does not void the order of
imprisonment. Section 7 of Rule 64 does not require such nding to appear in the order,
unlike section 1219 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California on which the
petitioner's contention is rested. Petitioner is in error in saying that section 237 of the
former Philippine Code of Civil Procedure, from which section 7 of Rule 64, supra, has
been copied, was of California origin. Former Justice Fisher is authority for the
statement that section 237 of Act No. 190 was borrowed from section 1456 of the
Ohio Code of Civil Procedure. (Fisher's Code of Civil Procedure, 3d ed., p. 136.) The
exact similarity in substance though not in language between the two provisions is a
confirmation of this statement.
At any rate, the order of commitment contains the alleged missing element if it is
taken, as it should be taken, in connection with the orders of October 7, 1947, and
March 27, 1948, and with the charges for contempt. It expressly gives non-compliance
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

with the two last mentioned orders as the grounds for the warrant of commitment, and
thus by reference makes them part of it. The orders of October 7, 1947, and March 27,
1948, in turn clearly specify the acts which the petitioner was commanded to ful ll. It is
equally clear from these orders that in the opinion of the court the petitioner is in a
position to bring back to the Philippines from Hongkong part of the cash and the
Balatoc shares he had remitted to that colony.
Whether or not in truth the court's ndings are supported by suf cient evidence
is a different matter; it is a matter of fact which can not be reviewed by habeas corpus.
In a long line of decisions, this Court has steadfastly held that habeas corpus
does not lie to correct errors of fact or law. (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58
Phil., 271; Quintos vs. Director of Prisons, 55 Phil., 304; Trono Felipe vs. Director of
Prisons, 24 Phil., 121; Gutierrez Repide vs. Peterson, 3 Phil., 276; Santiago vs. Director
of Prisons, L-1083, 1 44 Off. Gaz., 1231; McMicking vs. Schields, 238 U. S. 99, 41 Phil.,
971; Tinsley vs. Anderson, 43 Law. ed., 91.) When a court has jurisdiction of the offense
charged and of the party who is so charged, its judgment, order or decree is not subject
to collateral attack by habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus can not be made to
perform the function of a writ of error; and this holds true even if the judgment, order or
decree was erroneous, provided it is within the jurisdiction of the court which rendered
such judgment or issued such an order or decree. (Slade Perkins vs. Director of
Prisons, supra; Santiago vs. Director of Prisons, supra.) So whether the act charged has
been committed or can still be performed is conclusively determined by the order or
judgment of the trial court in the proceeding wherein the petitioner for habeas corpus is
adjudged in contempt. (Ex-parte Fisher, 206 S. W. 2d, 1000.)
The petition is denied with costs.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones and Montemayor, JJ.,
concur.

Separate Opinions
PERFECTO , J., dissenting :
Since May 4, 1948, Fred M. Harden has been placed under arrest and con ned at
the Bilibid Prisons, Muntinglupa, under the charge of the Director of Prisons.
Respondent's authority for con ning petitioner is based on the order of Judge
Emilio Pea, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, issued on April 28, 1948, which
reads as follows:
"It appearing that the defendant Fred M. Harden has not up to this date
complied with the orders of this court of October 7, 1947, and March 27, 1948;
"As prayed for, the court orders the arrest of the defendant Fred M. Harden
as well as his confinement at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa, Rizal, until he
complies with the aforementioned orders."

The order of October 7, 1947, requires Harden to return from abroad within a
period of 15 days, the amount of P1,000,608.66 to the Philippines and to redeposit the
same with the accounts of the Plaza Lunch of the Manila branch of the Chartered Bank
of India, Australia and China.
The order of March 27, 1948, requires Harden to deposit with the same bank the
money and drafts that he has actually in Hongkong and the certi cate covering 368,553
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Balatoc Mining Company shares, after registering them, as required in the order of
January 18, 1948.
The trial court ordered petitioner's con nement for an inde nite period of time
which means that it may last until his death, in virtue of the provisions of section 7 of
Rule 64 which reads as follows:
"SEC. 7.
Imprisonment until order obeyed. When the contempt
consists in the omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the accused to
perform, he may be imprisoned by order of a superior court until he performs it."

The reglementary provision is null and void per se and, therefore, should be
denied compliance. Perhaps, there is no other provision in our statute books more
revolting to conscience, more shocking to the most elemental sense of justice, and
most unreasonably Draconian.
The provision is characterized by such an extreme of arbitrariness that is
comprehensible only under a dictatorial system of government.
Petitioner has been and is claiming that he has no means of complying with the
orders for non-compliance of which he is committed to imprisonment for an inde nite
period of time. The trial court does not believe him, and we presume that said court
was justified by evidence.
But our presumption cannot take the place of absolute infallibility. When there
are con icting claims as to facts, courts decide the issue sometimes on a mere
preponderance of evidence and sometimes, as in criminal cases, on evidence carrying
conviction beyond all reasonable doubt.
A decision based on a preponderance of evidence does not carry absolute
certainty. A decision based on a conclusion of fact beyond all reasonable doubt is
stronger, yet no one is too crazy to believe that it carries absolute certainty or the mark
of infallibility. Judicial history is full of bloody pages about many individuals who have
been burned, decapitated by guillotine, hanged or shot, killed by garrote or electrocuted,
because tribunals found them guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, but later on found to
be absolutely innocent. Some of them have been and are loved and enshrined as
martyrs, heroes, and among them are counted the greatest moral gures humanity has
ever produced.
Because in petitioner's case the lower court had to act only and must have acted
on a mere preponderance of evidence, the possibility of error is greater in criminal
cases where conviction beyond all reasonable doubt is required. Therefore, although
the preponderance of evidence may militate against petitioner, such legal situation
does not preclude the possibility that truth, as an absolute, may after all support
petitioner's claim. In such case, unless a miracle should supervene to rescue him from
his plight, he will remain con ned for the rest of his days, an imprisonment more
perpetual than reclusion perpetua, the longest imprisonment allowed by law for the
worst criminals, kidnapers, robbers, parriciders, traitors.
Should petitioner have embezzled or stolen the money and certi cate of shares
required of him to be deposited in a bank he can be punished with years of
imprisonment but not nearing even reclusion perpetua. There is no offense or crime for
mere disobedience that is punished by reclusion perpetua or by many years of
imprisonment.
But petitioner, for a mere disobedience, which ultimately may not be
disobedience at all, is exposed to suffer imprisonment for life. This, certainly, is a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

agrant violation of the constitutional inhibition that no cruel and unusual punishment
shall be in icted. (Section 1 [19], Article III of the Constitution.) This is also a denial to
petitioner of the equal protection of the laws which is the rst guarantee in our Bill of
Rights. (Section 1 [1], Article III of the Constitution.)
The authors of the rules could not have conceived or imagined any contempt of
court of such perversity that would require a heavier punishment than a ne of P1,000
and six months imprisonment, the maximum penalty provided by section 6 of Rule 64.
In the present case, petitioner has already suffered the maximum imprisonment of six
months, and is exposed to remain in prison for many more years. Is there a conscience
too callous to fail to see the unbearable discrimination of the law against petitioner?
Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death or when they
employ something inhuman or barbarous, as stated in the Kemmler case (136 U. S.,
436), an authority invoked in the majority decision. But is there anything more inhuman,
barbarous, more torturing, giving the feeling of lingering death, than to compel a person
to unjustly endure an inde nite number of years of imprisonment, when the only offense
that he has committed is that of contempt and the most serious case of contempt
cannot be punished with imprisonment longer than six months? We have to be blind to
fail to see this.
The argument that the incarceration is not cruel because the sentence left the
doors open for petitioner to avoid serving any part of it by complying with the orders of
the court has absolutely no merit, because there is absolutely no reasonable ground in
the philosophy of law that would leave to the offender's discretion the length of his
imprisonment or the measures of his punishment. Aside from the unscienti c view
revealed by the argument, it has the short-sightedness of failing to see the possibilities
of error of judgment on the question as to whether the accused is yet in a position to
actually perform the acts ordered.
The allegation that the imprisonment or an inde nite period is purely a remedial
measure which assumes that the offender must have the means by which he may purge
himself with the contempt is pure rhetoric that has no ground in fact as can be seen by
any reasonable man. It fails to understand the true situation of a simple disobedience
punished with imprisonment that has no possible end except death.
We hold that the lower court erred in issuing the order of April 28, 1948, in so far
as it orders that petitioner be confined for an indefinite period of time.
We disagree with the pronouncements in the majority opinion, limiting the scope
of the writ of habeas corpus and issuing in favor of the lower court the patent of
infallibility on the factual question of whether or not the act ordered to be performed is
still in the hands of petitioner to perform. Such pronouncements are not supported by
law nor by any principle of substantial justice. Regardless of the length of the chain of
erroneous decisions supporting such pronouncements, the errors shall continue to be
errors. The length of the chain may only emphasize the amount of injustices
perpetrated under such pronouncements.
Assuming that the lower court found petitioner guilty of contempt, it could have
punished petitioner up to the maximum penalties provided by section 6 of Rule 64 but
never more. Considering that petitioner has already undergone the maximum of six
months imprisonment, even on the assumption that he is guilty, he is entitled to be
released from confinement.
We vote to grant the petition and to immediately release Fred M. Harden from
confinement and from the custody of respondent Director of Prisons.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Footnotes

1.

77 Phil., 927.

1.

77 Phil., 927.

1.

77 Phil., 927.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com