Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > May 1952 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

091 Phil 354:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3646. May 26, 1952.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLO S. RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General Felix Bautista Angelo and Assistant Solicitor Ruperto Kapunan for Appellee.

Pablo S. Rivera and Melanio O. Lalisan for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT; TRIAL; ABSENCE ON THE DAY OF THE TRIAL. — Where the failure of the accused to appear at the trial was not motivated by a desire to disobey willfully the court’s order, or to disregard or despise its authority, but was due to unavoidable circumstances arising from his desire to pursue certain legal remedies with a view to getting what he considered a more impartial judge to hear his case, his absence on the day of the trial of the criminal case is not punishable for contempt.

2. ID.; DISOBEDIENCE; INABILITY TO OBEY COURT’S ORDER. — The term "disobedience," which the rules punish as constructive contempt, implies willfulness. A "contempt" is a willful disregard or disobedience. An inability to obey an order is a good defense to a charge of contempt, unless the person charged voluntarily and contumaciously brought the disability to himself.

3. ID.; TRIAL; FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE TRIAL NOT WILLFUL OR DELIBERATE. — Where appellant’s failure to appear at the trial was not willful or deliberate, due to circumstances not entirely of his own making, his conduct for this inability to be present on the date of the trial, where he promptly advised the court through his counsel, therefore, may not be considered disrespectful.

4. ID.; REMEDIES; DIGNITY OF JUDGE NOT ASSAILED. — Appellant’s purpose in going to Manila from Bacolod to consult an attorney on his desire to have the trial judge prohibited from trying the case cannot be considered as degrading the dignity of the court, or an act of defiance to the judge presiding it. When a litigant exhausts all the remedies which the rules allow in order to seek an impartial adjudication of his case, the dignity of the judge is not thereby assailed or affected in the least; otherwise, all remedies allowed litigants, such as appeals from judgments, petitions for reconsideration thereof or for the disqualification of judges, or motions questioning the jurisdiction of courts, would be deemed derogatory to the respect due a judge. These remedies may be availed of by any litigant freely, without being considered guilty of an act of disrespect to the court or the judge.

5. ID.; POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT, HOW EXERCISED. — The power to punish for contempt of court should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. 1810, declaring the defendant-appellant guilty of constructive contempt, brought to this Court under Section 10, Rule 64, of the Rules of Court. Case No. 1810 is also a contempt case against the defendant-appellant originating in the municipal court of Bacolod. Said case was set for hearing on July 16, 1948, Defendant-Appellant being notified thereof in open court. On the date set for the hearing, July 16, 1948, Defendant-Appellant was absent. His lawyer, however, appeared and explained in open court that defendant had gone to Manila because of a notice of hearing before the Supreme Court.

The lower court found the explanation of defendant’s counsel unsatisfactory, and forthwith entered an order requiring the defendant-appellant to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. Pursuant to this order, Defendant-Appellant filed his written explanation, stating that he took a plane for Manila on the morning of July 13th with the intention of returning to Bacolod on the day of the trial, but was unable to come back in time for said trial; that he had sought an audience with the President of the Philippines, but failed to see the latter on the afternoon of the 15th, and was, therefore, compelled to see him on the morning of the 16th, the date of the trial in Bacolod; that his purpose in going to Manila was to seek the advice of a lawyer as to the propriety of suing out a writ of prohibition against the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental who was trying said contempt case against him; that the advice of said lawyer was given on Wednesday morning, July 14th, and as the lawyer opined that a petition for the writ of prohibition would not prosper, Defendant-Appellant thought of seeking an administrative remedy, which prompted him to consult the President about the matter; that his failure to appear at the trial was not due to any intention on his part to hinder the administration of justice or to any lack of respect due the court, but because of unavoidable circumstances.

When the case was called for hearing, the defendant-appellant gave the same explanation that he had given in writing, reiterating his statement that it was not his intention to disobey the court’s order, and that his failure to appear on the date set for the hearing of the criminal case against him was due to circumstances beyond his control. In the course of the hearing it became apparent that the presiding judge was somehow irked by the attempt of the defendant- appellant to prevent him from trying the case. He found defendant- appellant’s explanation and protestations unsatisfactory, and declared him guilty of constructive contempt. Hence this appeal.

The Solicitor General, in a very well-reasoned brief, and after an analysis of the facts, sustains the theory that the explanation given by the defendant-appellant for his non-appearance on the date of the trial is satisfactory, and recommends that the order appealed from be reversed and the appellant exonerated. Appellant, in turn, claims that it is evident from the record that his failure to appear on the date of the trial was not due to any "willful disrespect of the court’s order, or any desire to flout it," but to his desire to seek legal advice on the case against him for contempt, with a view to securing a writ of prohibition against the trial judge, because he considered it necessary to protect his previous record as a judge of First Instance and as a lawyer, "not minding the substantial monetary sacrifice that such obligation entails.."

After a careful consideration of the facts, we find that the explanation given by the defendant-appellant for his absence on the day of the trial of the criminal case is satisfactory; that his failure to appear was not motivated by a desire to disobey willfully the court’s order, or to disregard or despise its authority, but was due to unavoidable circumstances arising from his desire to pursue certain legal remedies with a view to getting what he considered a more impartial judge to hear his case.

The term "disobedience," which the rules punish as constructive contempt, implies willfulness. A "contempt" is a willful disregard or disobedience. (Saal v. South Brooklyn Ry. Co., 106 N. Y. S., 996, 1000, 122 App. Div. 364; 9 Words & Phrases 57; Narcida v. Bowen, 22 Phil., 365.) An inability to obey an order is a good defense to a charge of contempt, unless the person charged voluntarily and contumaciously brought the disability to himself. (State ex rel. McLean v. District Court, 97 P. 841, 842, 37 Mont. 485, 15 Ann. Cas. 941.) In the case at bar, appellant left Bacolod on the morning of July 13th, expecting to be able to return on the morning of the 16th, in time to appear at the trial of his case. However, he failed to see the President on the 15th as planned, and was obliged to stay one more day in Manila to see him in the morning of the 16th. In this predicament he wired his lawyer to inform the court of his inability to attend on the day of the trial and to ask for postponement. It is apparent that his failure to appear was not willful or deliberate; it was due to circumstances not entirely of his own making. And of this inability on his part to be present on the date of the trial, he promptly advised the court through his counsel. His conduct, therefore, may not be considered disrespectful. Neither may his purpose in going to Manila to consult an attorney on his desire to have the trial judge prohibited from trying the case be considered as degrading the dignity of the court, or an act of defiance to the judge presiding it. When a litigant exhausts all the remedies which the rules allow, in order to seek an impartial adjudication of his case, the dignity of the judge is not thereby assailed or affected in the least; otherwise, all remedies allowed litigants, such as appeals from judgments, petitions for reconsideration thereof or for the disqualification of judges, or motions questioning the jurisdiction of courts, would be deemed derogatory to the respect due a judge. These remedies may be availed of by any litigant freely, without being considered guilty of an act of disrespect to the court or the judge.

We note that the procedure employed by the defendant-appellant to secure what he believed an impartial judge to try his case, apparently displeased the trial judge, and this must have influenced him in no small measure in declaring appellant in contempt. In this respect, we reiterate what this Court has held heretofore, i.e., the power to punish for contempt of court should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. (Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil, 778.) .

The order appealed from is hereby reversed, and the defendant- appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952 - GENEROSA TORREFIEL, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO TORIANO

    091 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3318 May 5, 1952 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. SOTERO BALUYOT

    091 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-5482 May 5, 1952 - TRANQUILINO ROVERO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-4741 May 7, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO CAMO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-5514 May 7, 1952 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    091 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-4472 May 8, 1952 - ESPIRIDION RONE v. VICTOR CLARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5047 May 8, 1952 - VICENTE PANG KOK HUA v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    091 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

    091 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-4615 May 12, 1952 - JUAN DULDULAO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    091 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-4133 May 13, 1952 - AGUSTINA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE CARRILLO v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ

    091 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952 - PEDRO GAMBOA v. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. L-4100 & L-4102 May 15, 1952 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY v. LUIS CLARETE

    091 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4156 May 15, 1952 - FLORENCIA VITUG v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR

    091 Phil 286

  • G.R. Nos. L-4218-19 May 19, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO OBENIA

    091 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4420 May 19, 1952 - CESAR REYES v. MAX BLOUSE

    091 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3899 May 21, 1952 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORINO CERVO

    091 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-4189 May 21, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JACINTO SANTOS

    091 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-4234 May 21, 1952 - ABBOT LABORATORIES v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    091 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-3391 May 23, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ

    091 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    091 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-4333 May 23, 1952 - MARY HAYDEN ARCACHE v. NICOLAS LIZARES & CO., INC., ET AL.

    091 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    091 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952 - CENON S. CERVANTES v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    091 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-4783 May 26, 1952 - JULITA RELUCIO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ETC.

    091 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

    091 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 - JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION v. M. SARMIENTO

    091 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952 - CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO. v. PHIL. OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION

    091 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-4091 May 28, 1952 - MARIANO M. PARAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    091 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4181 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RODOLFO GERARDO

    091 Phil 395

  • G.R. Nos. L-4231 y L-4232 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ARTURO ALFARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-4316 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    091 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-4340 May 28, 1952 - REBECCA LEVIN v. JOAQUIN V. BASS

    091 Phil 419

  • G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

    091 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-4533 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MORALES

    091 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-4813 May 28, 1952 - ASSOCIATION OF BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. JOSE FIGUERAS

    091 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952 - DALMACIO FALCASANTOS v. HOW SUY CHING

    091 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4373 May 29, 1952 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. LEONCIA REYES

    091 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-4683 May 29, 1952 - OLIMPIO NEÑARIA v. JOSE P. VELUZ

    091 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952 - RAMON B. FELIPE v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 482