Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-35333. July 20, 1982.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF FELIX M. SULIT. FELIX M. SULIT, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE JOEL P. TIANGCO, Judge, Circuit Criminal Court of Batangas, and JOSE AQUINO, in Chief of Police of Batangas City, Respondents.

Felix M. Sulit for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Asst. Solicitor General Rosalio A. de Leon and Solicitor Jesus O. Ibay for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner was ordered incarcerated for direct contempt resulting from his use of "insolent, disrespectful and contemptuous" language in court. He was also subsequently cited for indirect contempt for using intemperate and disrespectful language in his radio program Tayo’y Magsiyasat assailing the alleged order as without legal basis. He was acquitted of this second charge. After his arrest, he applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court issued the writ requiring respondents to make a return, file an answer, and to release petitioner from custody and confinement upon posting bail. The respondent Judge averred that the challenged order was justified inasmuch as petitioner committed misbehavior before the same as it did so as to obstruct and interrupt the proceedings before the same as it did that afternoon of July 27 compelling the court to suspend the session of the trial of a case then being heard. An inquiry into the precise nature of the incident leading to the contempt citation revealed that petitioner had harbored resentment against the respondent Judge who had embarrassed him several times in court, thus leading the court to believe that his discourteous conduct and use of disrespectful language against the respondent judge was highly probable.

The Supreme Court held that the challenged order for direct contempt was not vitiated by jurisdictional infirmity but ruled that the lower court failed to meet the rigid test required for the exercise of the power to punish for contempt. The penalty imposed on petitioner was likewise held rather severe in character. In view of petitioner’s release from detention after 5 days upon his payment of the required bail, the petition was dismissed, the penalty suffered by petitioner having been adjudge as more than enough funishment for his contemptuous acts.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; JUDICIARY; POWER OF JUDGES TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT; POWER TO BE EXERCISED WITH RESTRAINT AND JUDICIOUSNESS. — People v. Estenzo, L-24522, May 29, 1975 states the guiding principle for the power to punish for contempt thus; "It cannot be denied that unless exercised with restraint and judiciousness, this power lends itself to manifestations of whim, caprice, and arbitrariness. There is a compelling and exigent need therefore for judges to take the utmost care lest prejudice, innate or covert hostility to personality of counsel, or previous incidents lead them to characterize conduct susceptible of innocent explanation as slights on the dignity of the court. It is ever timely to remember how easy it is to overstep the dividing line that should separate the prosecutor from the judge, when both roles are merged in the same person. The infusion of personal element may go unnoticed. Even if such were not the case, objectively viewed, such an impression may be difficult to avoid by laymen. That is the consideration that cannot be overlooked. Isis important that public confidence in judicial impartiality and fairness be not impaired."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POWER SHOULD BE EXERCISED ON THE PRESERVATIVE AND NOT ON THE VINDICATIVE PRINCIPLE. — The power to punish for contempt, as was pointed out by Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban, "should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindicative principle. Only occasionally should the Court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONTEMPT CHARGE CAN BE PUNISHED SUMMARILY. — From Carag v. Warden of the Jail of Cagayan, 53 Phil. 85, a 1929 decision, to Calo, Jr. v. Tapucar, L-47244, Jan. 16, 1979, decided fifty years later, this Court has accorded the utmost reliance on the appraisal of a respondent Judge in cases of this character. The Calo, Jr. decision cited a resolution in Yangson v. Salandanan, Adm. Case No. 1347 where contempt in facie curiae could be summarily punished without hearing.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — The punishment of ten days is impressed with a rather severe character. The lower court failed to meet the rigid but commendable test enunciated in People v. Estenzo. It does appear therefore that the incarceration of petitioner Sulit by virtue of the order for direct contempt lasted until this Court issued its resolution granting his liberty upon the posting of P200.00 bail, such resolution having been issued the day after this petition was filed. This detension ceased on the fifth day, the bail having been filed. That was more than enough punishment for such direct contempt.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, C.J.:


The use of language characterized as "insolent, disrespectful, and contemptuous," resulting in respondent Judge, now deceased, being compelled to suspend the session, but not deterring, so the order for contempt recited, petitioner Felix M. Sulit, a member of the bar and private prosecutor in the case, from continuing to address the people present in Court "in a very loud voice," charging the presiding judge with proceeding in utter disregard "of the rules and law," was the basis for petitioner being "summarily adjudged in contempt of court." 1 The penalty imposed was imprisonment of ten (10) days." 2 Hence this application for the writ of habeas corpus, the principal allegation being that such order of incarceration was without legal basis. The petition alleged that there was no direct contempt, as such order was issued on [28 July] for an alleged contemptuous act that took place on [21 July]. In the language of the petition: "Direct contempt being summary in nature [the judge] can order the incarceration of your petitioner one (1) minute or two (2) minutes after commission of alleged contemptuous act. As it is, we can easily conclude from the lapse of time that no direct contempt had ever transpired." 3 There was also a denial of his being "insolent, disrespectful, and contemptuous." In support of such a view, he referred, moreover, to a citation for indirect contempt by respondent Judge which, according to him, was received by him four and one half hours earlier than the order for direct contempt, such indirect contempt charge arising from language used by him in a radio program Tayo’y Magsiyasat, which was on the air from 6:30 to 7:00 o’clock in the morning of July 28. 4

This Court issued the writ requiring respondent Judge as well as respondent Chief of Police of Batangas City to make a return, to file an answer, and to release petitioner from custody and confinement upon depositing the amount of P200.00 bail.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

In the answer submitted by respondent Judge, he justified the challenged order for direct contempt on the ground that petitioner "committed misbehavior in the presence of the court so as to obstruct and interrupt the proceedings before the same as indeed he obstructed and interrupted the trial of the case of People v. Morales in the afternoon of [27 July]" 5 thus compelling the Court to suspend the session. Insofar as the challenged order referred to petitioner continuing to use an unseemly and insulting language and loud voice, respondent Judge relied on the affidavit of the court interpreter. It was his submission, therefore, that he could summarily adjudge petitioner in contempt, the challenged order being "legal and binding in every respect." 6 The answer of respondent Judge included the transcript of the stenographic notes of the hearing, including that portion that led to the contempt order, 7 the affidavit of the other private prosecutor G. Beloso, 8 and the affidavit of the Court interpreter Mario Contreras. 9 They all tended to show that a contumacious act was committed.

His answer then went on to state: "After proceeding to determine whether the facts justify punishment, respondent judge wrote the order finding Atty. Sulit guilty of direct contempt, and then gave the handwritten order to a typist. [She] typed the order at about 6:00 P.M., after which she left. The respondent judge signed the order and then called for the Clerk of Court or the Deputy Clerk of Court. Their offices were already closed and all court employees had left the office. Naturally, the order of the respondent judge was transmitted to the Clerk of Court in the [next] morning. Inquiries were made during that morning to know whether Atty. Sulit could be located at his residence, but the court personnel received information that Atty. Sulit was in Lemery, Batangas and will return to Batangas City in the afternoon, for which reason, the police officers of Batangas City were able to arrest Atty. Sulit only at about 4:30 o’clock in the afternoon of [28 July]. That Atty. Sulit in the early morning of [that day] already knew that there is an order finding him guilty of direct contempt is evidenced by the fact that in his radio commentary, ‘Tayo’y Magsiyasat’ DZYQ, Batangas City, from 6:00 A.M. to 6:30 A.M., . . . declared "Anong contempt of court, hindi puede macontempt si Abogado Sulit. Lalabanan ko yan sapagka’t yan ay illegal order." 10

There is some conflict in the testimony given by petitioner and respondent Judge as to the precise nature of the incident that led to the contempt citation. It is clear, however, that there was resentment on the part of petitioner when respondent Judge praised the other private prosecutor, Attorney Beloso, which is obvious from his memorandum submitted to this Court. Thus: "It is to be noted that the Honorable respondent Judge, for four (4) times had embarrassed Your Petitioner without justification. First, when the Judge took from Atty. Sulit the right to re-direct the witness for the prosecution without the authority of the Fiscal; the Honorable Respondent Judge in this instance became the Fiscal and the Judge at the same time; second, when he declared "that is why we need good lawyers like Atty. Beloso, at the outset I thought that it was Atty. Beloso who would conduct the direct examination, but it was Atty. Sulit who conducted the direct examination;" third, when it required Atty. Sulit to confirm Atty. Beloso as a competent lawyer; and fourth, when the Court prevented Atty. Sulit several times from finishing what he is saying but cutting him short in his statement by means of the court’s interference." 11 It is more than highly probable, therefore, that the but cutting him short in his statement by means of the court’s tone which he addressed respondent Judge was less than courteous. Moreover, on the next day, at his radio program, Tayo’y Magsiyasat, he used language intemperate and disrespectful which led to his citation for indirect contempt. The probability, thus becomes well-nigh a certainty. Parenthetically, it may be observed that it is to the credit of respondent Judge that notwithstanding the employment of words of the above character derogatory to him, petitioner was acquitted in the indirect contempt charge.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

1. To go back to the challenged order for direct contempt, it is the holding of this Court that it was not vitiated by jurisdictional infirmity. From Carag v. Warden of the Jail of Cagayan, 12 a 1929 decision, to Calo, Jr. v. Tapucar, 13 decided fifty years later, this Court has accorded the utmost reliance on the appraisal of a respondent Judge in cases of this character: The Calo, Jr. decision cited a resolution in Yangson, v. Salandanan, 14 penned by Justice Aquino, where contempt in facie curiae could be summarily punished without hearing. 15

2. The punishment, however, of ten days, is impressed with a rather severe character. People v. Estenzo 16 states the guiding principle in cases of this nature. Thus: "It cannot be denied either that unless exercised with restraint and judiciousness, this power lends itself to manifestations of whim, caprice, and arbitrariness. There is a compelling and exigent need therefore for judges to take the utmost care lest prejudice, innate or covert hostility to personality of counsel, or previous incidents lead them to characterize conduct susceptible of innocent explanation as slights on the dignity of the court. It is ever timely to remember how easy it is to overstep the dividing line that should separate the prosecutor from the judge, when both roles are merged in the same person. The infusion of personal element may go unnoticed. Even if such were not the case, objectively viewed, such an impression may be difficult to avoid by laymen. That is a consideration that cannot be overlooked. It is important that public confidence in judicial impartiality and fairness be not impaired . . .’The power to punish for contempt,’ as was pointed out by Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban, ‘should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindicative principle. Only occasionally should the Court invoke its inherent power in order to retain that respect without which the administration of justice must falter or fail.’ The lower court, it clearly appears, failed to meet such a rigid but commendable test." 17 It does appear, therefore, that the incarceration of petitioner Sulit by virtue of the order for direct contempt lasted until this Court issued its resolution granting him liberty upon the posting of P200.00 bail, such resolution having been issued the day after this petition was filed. This detention ceased on the fifth day, the bail having been filed. That was more than enough punishment for such direct contempt.chanrobles law library

WHEREFORE, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Petition, par. 5 and Annex A.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid, 2.

4. Ibid, 4, Annexes E. and F.

5. Answer, par. 3.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid, Annex D.

8. Ibid, Annex C.

9. Ibid, Annex E.

10. Ibid, Arguments, 8-9.

11. Memorandum for the Petitioner, 3.

12. 53 Phil. 85.

13. L-47244, January 16, 1979, 88 SCRA 78.

14. Adm. Case No. 1347, November 12, 1975, 68 SCRA 42.

15. Ibid. The Court cited the following cases: Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724 (1935); De Joya v. CFI of Rizal, 99 Phil. 907 (1956); Malolos v. Reyes, 111 Phil. 1113 (1961); Sison v. Sandejas, 105 Phil. 1279 (1959).

16. L-24522, May 29, 1975, 64 SCRA 211.

17. Ibid, 214-215. Villavicencio v. Lukban was reported in 39 Phil. 778 (1919).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45245 July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO T. GABILAN

  • G.R. No. L-57573 July 5, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ERNESTO DATU

  • G.R. No. L-58268 July 5, 1982 - ENRIQUETA S. TY v. EUSTAQUIA ELALE

  • G.R. No. L-27546 July 16, 1982 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF SWEEPSTAKES STAFF PERSONNEL

  • G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982 - MAGDALENA S. JOSON v. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-32694 & L-33119 July 16, 1982 - FIDEL SILVESTRE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36094 July 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO DELASA

  • G.R. No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 - EPITACIO BUERANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-40432 July 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-41543 July 19, 1982 - LEANDRO SEDECO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51458 July 19, 1982 - MANUEL YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982 - JESUS B. PACQUING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1895-CFI July 20, 1982 - LAMBERTO MACIAS v. GIBSON ARAULA

  • A.C. No. 2160 July 20, 1982 - AVELINO FRAN v. JUANITO FUERTE

  • A.M. No. 2691-CFI July 20, 1982 - ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30201 July 20, 1982 - CARMEN P. URBANO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG

  • G.R. No. L-32661 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982 - MARIO RODIS MAGASPI v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-37751 July 20, 1982 - MANUEL LAPINIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38140 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO LABINIA

  • G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-41399 July 20, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. CESAR GUY

  • G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 - DONALD MEAD v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-42963 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REINO P. ROLL

  • G.R. No. L-46954 July 20, 1982 - ELPIDIO YABES, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON FLOJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982 - LIM PIN v. CONCHITA LIAO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-47953 July 20, 1982 - LILIA B. GALCERAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-50439 July 20, 1982 - ENRIQUE T. YUCHENGCO, INC. v. CONRADO M. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-52435 July 20, 1982 - ELIZABETH SINCLAIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56554 July 20, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56833 July 20, 1982 - RAMON V. MERANO v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. L-58011-12 July 20, 1982 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-58678 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. L-58973-76 July 20, 1982 - INOCENTES AMORA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59519 July 20, 1982 - ADELA FRANCISCO v. ALFREDO M. GORGONIO

  • G.R. No. L-35726 July 21, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982 - VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE

    201 Phil. 8

  • A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE

    201 Phil. 37

  • A.C. No. 906 July 30, 1982 - TERESITA B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

    201 Phil. 40

  • A.C. No. 1182 July 30, 1982 - ISABELO C. ORIJUELA v. TEMISTOCLES A. ROSARIO

    201 Phil. 45

  • A.C. No. 2343 July 30, 1982 - FACUNDO LUBIANO v. JOEL G. GORDOLLA

    201 Phil. 47

  • A.M. No. 2397-MJ July 30, 1982 - ERNESTO D. BONILLA v. LEONARDO AFABLE

    201 Phil. 52

  • A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    201 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. NG SAM

    201 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982 - CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

    201 Phil. 82

  • G.R. No. L-29376 July 30, 1982 - MARIANO WONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    201 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-30279 July 30, 1982 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)

    201 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982 - VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO CAVITE v. EMILIA S. BLAS

    201 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-30738 July 30, 1982 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. JOSE ZULUETA

    201 Phil. 131

  • G.R. No. L-31818 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GADIANO

    201 Phil. 143

  • G.R. Nos. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. MILFLORES

    201 Phil. 154

  • G.R. No. L-32463 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. BATOY

    201 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO PEDROSO

    201 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-33169 July 30, 1982 - GLICERIO JAVELLANA v. CESAR KINTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-33327 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ALMENDRAS

    201 Phil. 211

  • G.R. Nos. L-34527-28 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAGBANUA

    201 Phil. 219

  • G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 - JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD ZURBITO

    201 Phil. 256

  • G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

    201 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-37270 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    201 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

    201 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-38208 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENECITO VILLASON

    201 Phil. 298

  • G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982 - LUZ E. BALITAAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. L-38859 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VIZCARRA

    201 Phil. 326

  • G.R. No. L-39966 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO TABADERO

    201 Phil. 340

  • G.R. No. L-40494 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BURGOS

    201 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-49401 July 30, 1982 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. JOSE P. ARRO

    201 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-55687 July 30, 1982 - JUASING HARDWARE v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    201 Phil. 369

  • G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    201 Phil. 376

  • G.R. No. L-57841 July 30, 1982 - BERNARDO GALLEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-59283 July 30, 1982 - CRISANTO MOLINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    201 Phil. 385

  • G.R. No. L-60236 July 30, 1982 - DOMESTIC SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. MILAGROS VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA

    201 Phil. 390