G.R. No. L-45. February 26, 1946.
ANGEL JOSE REALTY CORP., plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX GALAO, ET AL., defendants. BERNARDINA GALAO and FONG LAY, appellants.

FACTS

1. On April 25, 1945, the Municipal Court of Manila rendered a decision in Civil Case No. A-47, ordering appellants (defendants) to pay rent and vacate the premises. Appellants perfected their appeal within the prescribed period.
2. On May 16, 1945, appellee (plaintiff) filed an ex parte petition for a writ of execution of the appealed judgment. The Municipal Court granted it without notice to appellants.
3. On May 25, 1945, the execution was suspended because rents for March to May 1945 had already been deposited with the court.
4. On May 29, 1945, after the appeal was perfected, appellee again filed an ex parte petition for an alias writ of execution. The Municipal Court granted it without notice to appellants. The Sheriff executed the judgment, ejecting appellants from the premises without giving them a chance to file the supersedeas bond of P200 noted on the writ.
5. About an hour after ejection, appellants re-entered the premises by breaking a padlock, due to lack of a place to stay.
6. The next day (May 30) was a legal holiday, so appellants filed the supersedeas bond on May 31, 1945. The Municipal Court, after a hearing, approved the bond and found no contempt in appellants’ re-entry.
7. Appellee filed written charges for contempt in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which convicted appellants, sentencing them to five days’ imprisonment and a P50 fine each. Appellants appealed, assigning four errors.

ISSUE

Whether appellants committed contempt of court by re-entering the premises after being ejected pursuant to the alias writ of execution.

RULING

No, appellants did not commit contempt of court. The alias writ of execution issued by the Municipal Court was not validly and legally issued, and disobedience to a void order does not constitute contempt.
1. The Municipal Court had lost jurisdiction over the case due to the perfection of appellants’ appeal.
2. Even disregarding jurisdiction, the writ violated Section 8, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court: (a) it was issued without notice to appellants, and (b) rents for May 1945 had already been deposited, making execution improper.
3. Contempt requires disobedience of a lawful order. Citing Chanco vs. Madrilejos (9 Phil. 356) and Weigall vs. Shuster (11 Phil. 340), the Supreme Court held that a void order may be disobeyed without incurring contempt.
The appealed judgment is reversed, and appellants are acquitted. Costs de oficio.