Short answer. Yes. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court is punishable as indirect contempt under the Rules of Court. But it cannot be punished summarily: there must first be a written charge, an opportunity for the respondent to comment, and a hearing.
What the law says
Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court
Rule 71, Section 3 — Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Read the full provision →
What the law says
After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel
Rule 71, Section 3 — Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Read the full provision →
Disobedience is a ground for indirect contempt
Among the acts the Rules list as punishable is disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court. The word lawful does real work: the writ or order defied must be one the court had authority to issue. But a party who believes an order is wrong does not get to disobey it and argue lawfulness later as a matter of course — the safe course is always to comply and challenge the order through the proper remedies, because guessing wrong about its validity is how contempt liability is incurred.
It even covers returning to property after ejectment
The same ground expressly includes the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, whether to exercise ownership or possession or to disturb the possession of the person the court placed there. This answers a common real-world scenario: the losing party in an ejectment case who slips back onto the land, or sends someone else in, is not merely restarting the dispute — that conduct is itself punishable as indirect contempt.
No punishment without charge and hearing
Indirect contempt cannot be punished on the spot. Punishment comes only after a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel. This is the essential difference from direct contempt, which is committed in the court's presence and dealt with summarily. A person accused of defying an order is entitled to know the accusation in writing, to answer it, and to a hearing — though the Rules preserve the court's power to issue process to bring the respondent into court, or to hold him in custody pending the proceedings.
If you are on either side of a disobeyed order
For the party holding a writ or judgment the other side ignores, the contempt charge is the pressure mechanism the Rules supply — initiated by a written charge, not by complaint letters to the sheriff. For the party accused, the priorities are the opposite: comply or secure relief from the order quickly, then use the comment and hearing to explain the conduct. In both positions, the paper trail decides much — the order itself, proof of its service, and evidence of exactly what was done or not done after it.