Short answer. The penalty is arresto mayor plus a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos, the amount as revised by RA 10951 in 2017. Article 242 applies specifically when the officer continues the proceeding before the question of jurisdiction is decided, after being lawfully required to stop.
What the law says
Any public officer who, before the question of jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any proceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain from so doing, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000).
Revised Penal Code, Article 242 — Ignoring Order To Desist. Read the full provision →
The conduct Article 242 punishes
Article 242 targets a specific sequence of events: a public officer is lawfully required to refrain from continuing a proceeding, before the question of jurisdiction is decided, and nonetheless continues the proceeding anyway. All three elements matter — the requirement to stop has to be lawful, it has to come while jurisdiction is still an open question, and the officer has to actually keep going despite having been told to stop.
The penalty: arresto mayor plus a fine
The penalty combines two components rather than offering a choice between them: arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000). Both apply together — imprisonment under arresto mayor, and a fine up to the stated ceiling — rather than the court choosing one penalty or the other for the officer convicted under this particular article of the Code.
The fine amount reflects RA 10951's 2017 revision
The one hundred thousand peso ceiling in Article 242 is the amount as revised by Republic Act No. 10951, enacted in 2017, which updated the fines and property values used throughout the Revised Penal Code. Older reproductions of the Code may still show the original, much smaller 1930 figure, so anyone relying on a source for this fine should confirm it reflects the amount as revised by RA 10951 rather than the outdated original.
Why the timing tied to jurisdiction matters
The article is written around the specific moment when jurisdiction is still undecided. Once that question is actually settled, continuing the proceeding is a different matter that this particular article does not address one way or the other. What Article 242 punishes is pressing ahead precisely during the period when the officer's authority to act is itself in question, after being told to stop, rather than proceeding once his authority to act has already been confirmed.
Who this applies to and what it protects
Article 242 binds public officers exercising some kind of adjudicative or administrative authority where a party can raise the question of whether that officer even has jurisdiction to act. The rule protects the party raising that objection from having the proceeding pushed forward while the objection is still pending, and it protects the integrity of whatever eventual decision is reached, by penalizing an officer who disregards a lawful requirement to pause and instead keeps the proceeding moving.