Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

Harden Vs Director of Prisons

This document summarizes a civil case from 1948 regarding Fred M. Harden who was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order to return funds he had transferred to different banking institutions. The key issue was whether Harden's indefinite confinement for contempt of court was excessive. The court held that indefinite confinement for civil contempt is only meant to be remedial, not a punishment, and leaving the length of imprisonment up to the offender's discretion to comply with court orders violates prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. The court found Harden's potential life imprisonment for mere disobedience to be disproportionate and a denial of equal protection under the law.

Uploaded by

beb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views1 page

Harden Vs Director of Prisons

This document summarizes a civil case from 1948 regarding Fred M. Harden who was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order to return funds he had transferred to different banking institutions. The key issue was whether Harden's indefinite confinement for contempt of court was excessive. The court held that indefinite confinement for civil contempt is only meant to be remedial, not a punishment, and leaving the length of imprisonment up to the offender's discretion to comply with court orders violates prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. The court found Harden's potential life imprisonment for mere disobedience to be disproportionate and a denial of equal protection under the law.

Uploaded by

beb
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

FRED M.

HARDEN
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
G.R. No. L-2349 October 22, 1948

FACTS:

In civil case between Mrs Harden and Fred M Haden involving administration of conjugal
partnership, alimony and accounting, Mrs Haden filed a motion before the court to return
all the amounts he transferred to different banking institutions (P1,000,606.66) and to redeposit
them with the Manila branch of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China within a period of
15 days from the receipt of the order.Since May 4, 1948, Fred M Harden is being confined in
prison for contempt of Court that arose

ISSUES:

1. WoN the indefinite confinement in contempt of court is excessive

HELD:

1. YES. The argument that indefinite confinement in civil cases is only for remedial
purposes and is not cruel because the sentence left the doors open for him to avoid
serving any part of it by complying with the orders of the court has absolutely no merit.
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.
Fred Haden, for a mere disobedience/ contempt, the true situation of simple
disobedience which ultimately may not be disobedience at all, is exposed to suffer
imprisonment for life. This, certainly, is a flagrant violation of the constitutional inhibition
that no cruel and unusual punishment shall be inflicted. This is also a denial to petitioner
of the equal protection of the laws which is the first guarantee in our Bill of Rights.

You might also like