Case Digest (G.R. No. 5272)
Facts:
In re Vicente Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, January 21, 1949, the Supreme Court En Banc, Feria, J., writing for the Court. This is a contempt proceeding instituted by the Supreme Court against respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto for a written statement he caused published on December 5, 1948, criticizing and attacking the Court's decision in In re Angel Parazo (Parazo), threatening legislative measures to “reorganize” and replace the Court's membership, and otherwise imputing deliberate “blunders and injustices” by the Court. The statement appeared in the Manila Times and other papers; it accompanied further public remarks by Sotto during the pendency of the Parazo reconsideration.On December 7, 1948, the Court ordered Sotto to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt; he was given five days and later a ten-day extension to file an answer. His answer was filed late but admitted. The Court set the matter for oral argument (initially January 4, 1949, later postponed to January 10), but Sotto did not appear and the case was submitted for decision.
Sotto defended on multiple grounds: that the Court lacked power under Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution to impose correctional penalties outside statutes; that his publication was protected by freedom of speech and of the press; and that he had acted in good faith as author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53). The Court considered Rule 64 of its Rules, the relevant provisions of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190, secs. 231, 232, 235, 236), and precedents such as In re Kelly and American authority (e.g., U.S. v. Sullens) in determining whether the publication constituted contempt by intimidating the Court or obstructing the administration of justice.
The Court found the statement went beyond permissible criticism: it threatened to influence the pending Parazo proceedings by legislative intimidation, assailed the Court’s integrity, and thus tended to obstruct the administration of justice. The Court found Sotto guilty of contempt, imposed a fine of P1,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency), and required him to show cause why he should not be disbarred. A separate concurring opinion was filed by Justice Perfecto, which agreed in the judgment but elaborated at length on Sotto’s prior misconduct and the limits of...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court have power to punish for contempt under its inherent judicial authority and the rules/statutes invoked (Rule 64; Act No. 190, secs. 231, 232, 235, 236; and Sec. 13, Art. VIII, Const.)?
- Are respondent’s published statements protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press such that they cannot be punished as contempt?
- Did respondent’s publication and subsequent statements constitute contempt by intending to intimidate the Court, obstruct the administration of justice, or degrade the judiciary, thus justifying conviction and penalty?
- Should the respondent be further dealt with administratively (...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)