ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2382   May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO<br /><br />083 Phil 744

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2382. May 27, 1949.]

    PABLO S. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Respondent.

    Laurel, Sabido, Almario & Laurel for Petitioner.

    The respondent Judge in his own behalf.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; CRIMINAL CONTEMPT; ACT OF COURT IN SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL; CERTIORARI AS NOT PROPER REMEDY. — The petitioner has a complete and adequate remedy by appeal. The prescribed procedure is to file a motion to quash and, failing in that, to plead and appeal from an adverse decision that might be handed down on the merits. This court is reluctant to interfere with the course of a criminal proceeding unless the court below is clearly without jurisdiction of the offense charged or of the person of the defendant, or the officer filing the information has no authority to do so.

    2. CONTEMPT; JUDGMENT AS INDIRECT CONTEMPT, WHEN, APPEALABLE. — The judgment for contempt which the petitioner has been found guilty for failure to appear of the trial of a case with proper notice duly served to him is indirect contempt and is, theretofore, appealable.

    3. ID.; DIRECT AND INDIRECT. — Direct contempts consist of misbehaviour in the presence of or so near a court of judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. Indirect contempts, or contempts punished after charged and hearing, are enumerated in section 3, paragraph (b) of which mentions "disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge."


    D E C I S I O N


    TUASON, J.:


    This is a combined petition for certiorari and mandamus. The object of the first is to review and set aside the actuations of Judge Arellano of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in an appealed case for contempt of court originating in the municipal court of Bacolod City. Mandamus is sought to compel the same judge to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner from another sentence of conviction for contempt of court imposed by Judge Arellano himself.

    It appears that on June 3, 1948, in the course of the trial of a criminal case in the municipal court of Bacolod City for less serious physical injuries, the private prosecutors asked the court to require the defense counsel, the petitioner herein, to furnish the prosecution with a list of witnesses for the defense. This petition was granted with the warning that if such list were not submitted no witnesses for the defense would be allowed to testify. The counsel for the defense did not consider the procedure lawful and refused to comply; and in order to prepare the ground for a writ of mandamus in the event the trial judge should make good his warning and threat, he filed a writing excepting to the order which he said required him to furnish the prosecution with a list of his witnesses. Right then and there Judge Amante, of the municipal court, remarked that the list of witnesses was being required for his information and not for the benefit of the prosecution, and ordered that the wording of the exception be changed accordingly, a change which the attorney refused to make. An incident of a personal nature occurred after this refusal resulting in the sentencing of the defense attorney by the court for contempt. He was condemned to imprisonment for 24 hours and to pay a fine of P10. From this sentence the attorney appealed to the Court of First Instance.

    In the latter court, the provincial fiscal filed an information charging the petitioner with "the crime of direct contempt." It was alleged that the accused, "having been ordered by the presiding judge (of the municipal court) to submit a list of defense witnesses for the information of the court the day previous, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, refuse and disobey to comply with said order and in a written exception on record made it appear that the court required the defense counsel to furnish the prosecution with the names of defense witnesses, which is a distortion of the fact and a flagrant disrespect toward the court and by his arrogant and defiant attitude during the proceedings towards the court, impeded, obstructed and degraded the administration of justice." Afterward, on July 7, 1948, Judge Arellano, in the midst of the trial of two criminal cases ordered the setting of the contempt case for the 16th, an order of which the petitioner was advised through a formal notice on July 12.

    On July 13, the petitioner emplaned for Manila to engage, according to him, legal assistance and was not on hand on the 16th when his case was called for trial. However, on the previous day he had sent his law partner a telegram from Manila requesting the latter to move for the postponement of his case to a later date for the reasons above mentioned. Not satisfied with the reasons stated in the telegram, Judge Arellano, on the same date and in open court dictated an order for the forfeiture of the defendant’s bond and his arrest. On the 17th, however, through the intercession of other lawyers, Judge Arellano changed the tenor of his order by merely requiring the defendant to appear before the court on July 24 and to show cause why he should not be held for contempt of court. On the last mentioned date, the petitioner personally appeared and explained to the court why he did not show up on the 16th. It was after this hearing that the judgment in question was pronounced, sentencing the accused attorney to pay a fine of P50. After a motion for reconsideration was denied the petitioner filed a formal notice of appeal and requested that the execution of the judgment be suspended, offering to file a bond in an amount to be determined by the court. Judge Arellano refused to approve the appeal holding that the contempt committed by the accused was direct contempt and that there was no appeal from decisions for direct contempt.

    On the application for certiorari our opinion is that this relief does not lie. The petitioner has a complete and adequate remedy by appeal. The prescribed procedure is to file a motion to quash and, failing in that, to plead and appeal from an adverse decision that might be handed down on the merits. This Court is reluctant to interfere with the course of a criminal proceeding unless the court below is clearly without jurisdiction of the offense charged or of the person of the defendant, or the officer filing the information has no authority to do so. It is important to note in this connection that, quite apart from the petitioner’s alleged refusal to furnish the municipal judge with a list of defense witnesses, a refusal which the judge regarded as "a flagrant disrespect toward the court," the petitioner is charged with "arrogant and defiant attitude during the proceedings towards the court," by which he allegedly "impeded, obstructed and degraded the administration of justice." The latter charge is one of the acts of contempt specified in section 1 of Rule 64. Obviously, this charge involves a question of fact and its legality and sufficiency could not be judged in advance of the presentation of evidence.

    But on the question of the right of the petitioner to appeal from Judge Arellano’s condemnatory decision, the petition for mandamus is in order. The alleged contempt of which the petitioner has been found guilty is indirect contempt and conviction therefor is appealable. Section 1 of Rule 64 defines direct contempts which are punishable summarily. Broadly they consist of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. This section was substantially taken from section 231 of the former Code of Civil Procedure which provided for the punishment of direct contempts by Courts of First Instance. Indirect contempts, or contempts punished after charge and hearing, are enumerated in section 3, paragraph (b) of which mentions "disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or judge." Sections 3 to 10 of Rule 64 correspond to sections 232 to 240 of the former Code which denominated the acts enumerated therein. (Nacida v. Bowen, 22 Phil., 365.) For the rest, failure or refusal of an accused or of his attorney to appear for trial comes closer to the definition of indirect contempt in paragraph (b) of section 3 than to a misbehavior in the presence of or near the court contemplated in section 1.

    "In State v. Winthrop, 148 Wash., 526, p. 793; 59 A.L.R., 1265, it was held that the unexcused absence of an attorney from the court when a case in which he was attorney of record for one of the parties was called for trial is not a contempt occurring in the presence or view of the court so as to be summarily punishable, but contempt therein, if any occurred, away from, and out of, the presence of the court, and he is not subject to discipline and punishment, other than by a charge being first made against him substantially as required by statute." (Footnote, 12 Am. Jur. Sec. 11, p. 396.)

    In Finnick v. Peterson, 6 Phil., 172, this Court said: "A witness who fails or refuses to comply with a subpoena duces tecum is guilty of contempt. Such contempt is not committed in the presence of the court, even though, upon appearance of the witness, the court should make a verbal order commanding him to comply with the terms of the subpoena. Such a witness can not be punished summarily. He is entitled to the hearing provided for under sections 232-240 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The petition is denied as to the prayer for the issuance of a writ of certiorari and granted as to the prayer for mandamus. The respondent judge is directed to give due course to the petitioner’s appeal, without costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto. Bengzon and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2382   May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO<br /><br />083 Phil 744


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED