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
 

   
March-1950 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1720 March 4, 1950 - SIA SUAN, ET AL. v. RAMON ALCANTARA

    085 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. L-2038 March 4, 1950 - LUIS DEL CASTILLO v. METROPOLITAN INSURANCE COMPANY

    085 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2171 March, 4, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. IDE LAGON RAMOS

    085 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-2407 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS ALUPAY

    085 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. L-2447 March 4, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO PULIDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. L-1296 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PALICTE

    085 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-1546 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RUFINO SURALTA

    085 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-2462 March 6, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. GO LEE

    085 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-2665 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO PATERNO, ET AL

    085 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-2996 March 6, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRECIANO MEJARES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-3463 March 6, 1950 - LEONCIO ROSARES v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-2335 March 7, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO MORENO

    085 Phil 731

  • G.R. No. L-3643 March 7, 950

    CARLOS C. ASPRA v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    085 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. L-2269 March 14, 1950 - FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA v. NARCISO DE GUZMAN

    085 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-1990 March 15, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO GANAL, ET AL.

    085 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. L-2809 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRISCO HOLGADO

    085 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-3022 March 22, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CABASA, ET AL

    085 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-3580 March 22, 1950 - CONRADO MELO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL

    085 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. L-2217 March 23, 1950 - MIGUEL R. CORNEJO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    085 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-2582 March 23, 1950 - TRINIDAD SEMIRA, ET AL v. JUAN ENRIQUEZ

    085 Phil 776

  • G.R. No. L-2981 March 23, 1950 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORP. v. VICTORIA PASCUAL, ET AL

    085 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. L-2434 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABANTUG RANGON ET AL.

    085 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-2584 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO BARRAMEDA

    085 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-2636 March 25, 1950 - YU SIP v. COURT OF APPEALS

    085 Phil 795

  • G.R. No. L-2784 March 25, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERARDO NARSOLIS ET AL.

    085 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-2856 March 27, 1950 - GO CAM v. Hon. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ET AL

    085 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. L-2743 March 29, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CANDELARIA

    085 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. L-836 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO MAGDANG, ET AL

    085 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-1912 March 30, 1950 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANATOLIO LLENARIZAS

    085 Phil 809

  • G.R. No. L-2239 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO SANTIAGO

    085 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2275 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMPLICIO MACASO, ET ALS.

    085 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-2288 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO MANOLONG

    085 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-2600 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO MARAPAO

    085 Phil 832

  • G.R. No. L-2647 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. SERRANO

    085 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-2681 March 30, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO MARGEN, ET AL.

    085 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-2175 March 31, 1950 - NG GIOC LIU v. SECRETARY OF THE DFA

    085 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-2189 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CILDO, ET AL

    085 Phil 845

  • G.R. No. L-2318 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO PAAR

    085 Phil 864

  • G.R. No. L-2405 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    085 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-2801 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BELANDRES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. L-2880 March 31, 1950 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO MOSTOLES, ET AL.

    085 Phil 883

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. L-2217   March 23, 1950 - MIGUEL R. CORNEJO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />085 Phil 772

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2217. March 23, 1950.]

    MIGUEL R. CORNEJO, as attorney for Arcadia Acacio Et. Al., Petitioner, v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Respondent.

    Petitioner in his own behalf.

    Respondent Judge in his own behalf.

    SYLLABUS


    1. APPEAL; DIRECT CONTEMPT, NO APPEAL LIES FROM ORDER OF. — No appeal lies from an order of a superior court declaring a person in direct contempt thereof.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    In civil case No. 483 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, entitled "Cariño, et al v. Acacio, Et Al.," Atty. Miguel R. Cornejo was (allegedly) asked by the defendants Acacio to act as their counsel; but for his convenience he requested his companion, Attorney Palacol, to handle it. The latter entered his appearance and acted accordingly. On May 21, 1948, during the hearing of the case, Cornejo was presented as a witness. Practically all the questions were objected to by opposing counsel, and the judge, the respondent Bienvenido A. Tan, sustained almost all objections. Whereupon Attorney Cornejo left the witness stand and approached the attorney’s table asking that his appearance for the defendants be noted. It was apparent he wanted to say as counsel what he had been prevented from saying as witness. The respondent judge told him he could not thus appear, there being already one lawyer and no substitution of counsel had been accomplished in accordance with the rules.

    A few days later, Attorney Cornejo submitted a memorandum in which he said, among other things, that the judge had unduly favored the plaintiffs, to the extent of advising Attorney Palacol "to fix the case because his position was hopeless," and that the memorandum was filed as a protest against the "unjust, hostile, vindictive and dangerous attitude of the judge." The memorandum further stated that copies thereof had been sent to the Secretary of Justice, the Supreme Court, and the Office of the President of the Senate.

    In an order dated May 26, 1948, the respondent judge, rejecting the accusation of partiality, stated that in accordance with his usual practice he had told Attorney Palacol to see if the matter could be settled amicably. Then he required Attorney Cornejo to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt on four counts, namely, for appearing in court without being a party or attorney in the case, for using offensive language, for misbehavior in the presence of the court and for publishing his memorandum before it was submitted and decided by the court.

    Answering the order, Attorney Cornejo expressed doubts that he would be treated impartially because the charges of contempt had been made by the judge himself, and reiterated his accusation that the judge had unduly anticipated his opinion on the case in favor of plaintiffs, "demonstrating his over-anxiety to dispatch the case" "indirectly aiding counsel for the plaintiffs" "insulting and humiliating the undersigned attorney while on the witness stand, etc.." Then he went on to explain away or rebut the charges made.

    Immediately thereafter Attorney Cornejo repaired to this Court asking for judgment ordering the respondent judge to admit his appearance as counsel for the defendants in civil case No. 483, to refrain from rendering his decision in said case until he shall have allowed the petitioner as counsel for defendants to present further evidence, and to stop all action on the proceeding for contempt of court.

    On June 7, 1948, we required the respondent to answer the amended petition within ten days. We also resolved that upon the filing of bond by petitioner in the amount of P200 a writ of preliminary injunction will be issued. Such writ was actually issued on June 15, 1948.

    It appears, however, that on June 5, 1948, the respondent judge decided civil case No. 483. And on June 4, 1948, he declared Attorney Cornejo guilty of contempt and sentenced him to pay a fine of P100 or in case of insolvency, to suffer imprisonment for ten days. It also appears that on the same day Attorney Cornejo interposed an appeal, which was denied by the respondent, on the ground that there is no appeal in the matter of direct contempts.

    In view of these developments and of others to be indicated later on, the petitioner now asks: (1) that the respondent be required to admit and recognize his appearance as counsel in civil case No. 483, and that the decision in that litigation be set aside on the ground that defendants were deprived of their right to present further evidence through the petitioner as counsel, and (2) that the judgment for contempt be reviewed and revoked.

    On the first point it further appears that, as the injunction order proved too late, Attorney Palacol submitted on June 23, 1948, a "petition to set aside judgment or proceeding" seeking relief under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, and that upon denial thereof he appealed on July 12, 1948 to the Court of Appeals. Wherefore, it is reasonable to expect that this question will be decided by the Court of Appeals upon a review of the main controversy. Upon this ground, and partly because petitioner failed to implead the opposing parties in the said civil case No. 483, this portion of the petition may not be granted in these proceedings.

    On the second point, it is settled that no appeal lies from an order of a superior court declaring a person in direct contempt thereof. 1 Now, was the submission of the memorandum a direct contempt? The respondent held it was (1) because Cornejo was not an attorney in the case; (2) because it used offensive language against the court; and (3) because it was published before it was submitted and decided by the court. Copy of the memorandum is part of the record before us. It contains the following paragraph:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is further respectfully prayed that this memorandum be taken for a protest against what he believes to be unjust, hostile, vindictive and dangerous attitude or conduct of the presiding Judge, Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, of this Honorable Court in a democratic government where laws shall reign supreme unless the same Judge wants to sabotage the present administration of the President who is seeking the restoration of public peace and order and the faith of the people in our Government"

    That is indeed strong language. It is insulting and contemptuous. 2 The judge may have erred in some of his rulings; but mistakes never justify offensive language. As was said in Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil., 729:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts require. The reason for this is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution."cralaw virtua1aw library

    And the last paragraph informing the judge that copies of the memorandum had been furnished "the Honorable, the Secretary of Justice, etc.", could rightly be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the court in the exercise of its judicial functions.

    Omitting reference to the other points, enough has been stated to show that there was no clear abuse of the respondent’s powers in declaring Attorney Cornejo to be in direct contempt. Petition denied. No costs.

    Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Section 2, Rule 64, Rules of Court; People v. Abaya, 43 Phil., 247; Carag v. Warden of the Jail of Cagayan, 53 Phil., 85.

    2. Lualhati v. Albert, 57 Phil., 86; Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil., 724.

    G.R. No. L-2217   March 23, 1950 - MIGUEL R. CORNEJO v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN<br /><br />085 Phil 772




    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