In the Philippine legal system, the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts. This authority is essential to the administration of justice, serving to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to enforce the court’s judgments, orders, and writs. Under the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 71, contempt is categorized into two primary types: Direct and Indirect.

Understanding the distinction between the two is critical, as they differ significantly in their grounds, the procedure for punishment, and the available remedies.

1. Direct Contempt (Section 1)

Direct contempt consists of misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the administration of justice.

Grounds for Direct Contempt

Disrespect toward the court: Offensive behavior or language directed at the judge while in session.
Disorderly conduct: Acts that disturb the proceedings (e.g., shouting, physical altercations in the courtroom).
Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness: When a person is lawfully required to testify but refuses without a valid legal excuse.
Refusal to subscribe an affidavit or deposition: When lawfully required to do so.

Procedure and Penalty

Direct contempt is summary in nature. This means:

No formal hearing is required. The judge perceives the act personally and can declare the person in contempt on the spot.
Immediate Execution: The court issues a judgment or order of contempt immediately.

Penalties:

Regional Trial Courts (or higher): A fine not exceeding and/or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days.
Lower Courts (MTC/MeTC): A fine not exceeding and/or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) day.

Remedy

A person adjudged in direct contempt cannot appeal the order. The exclusive remedy is to file a Petition for Certiorari or Prohibition under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion. However, the execution of the sentence can be stayed if the person posts a bond fixed by the court.

2. Indirect Contempt (Section 3)

Indirect contempt, also known as "constructive contempt," involves acts committed outside the presence of the court. These are acts that defy the court's authority or dignity but are not personally witnessed by the judge in session.

Grounds for Indirect Contempt

Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, or order: The most common ground (e.g., a party refusing to follow a Writ of Execution).
Abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court: Any conduct that impedes the legal process but isn't committed in the judge's face.
Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice: This is a "catch-all" provision.
Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court: Acting without authority.
Failure to obey a subpoena duly served.
Rescue of a person or property in the custody of an officer by virtue of a judicial order.

Procedure

Unlike direct contempt, indirect contempt requires due process. The procedure involves:

Charge in Writing: A formal charge must be filed. This can be done motu proprio by the court through an Order to Show Cause, or through a verified petition filed by an interested party.
Opportunity to be Heard: The respondent must be given the chance to comment and defend themselves in a hearing.

Remedy

The judgment of a court on indirect contempt is appealable. The appeal follows the same procedure as in criminal cases, and the execution of the judgment may be stayed upon the filing of a bond.

Key Differences at a Glance

Feature	Direct Contempt	Indirect Contempt
Location	In the presence of or near the court.	Outside the presence of the court.
Procedure	Summary (Immediate).	Charge and Hearing (Due Process).
Notice/Hearing	Not required.	Required.
Remedy	Certiorari or Prohibition (Rule 65).	Appeal (as in criminal cases).
Nature of Act	Personal affront to the judge/court.	Disobedience to orders or interference with process.

The "Power of the Pen" vs. The "Power of the Sword"

The Philippine Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative, and not the vindictive, principle. It is a drastic remedy that should be used sparingly.

"The power to punish for contempt should be used as an instrument of justice, not as a weapon of retaliation."

In cases of Direct Contempt, the goal is the immediate restoration of order. In Indirect Contempt, the focus is often on compelling a party to comply with a court mandate (civil in nature) or punishing an affront to the institution of the judiciary (criminal in nature).