Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8974)
Initiation of Contempt Proceedings
After the Secretary of Justice forwarded Cabansag’s letter to the Clerk of Court with instructions to require the stenographers to transcribe their notes, Clerk referred the matter to the presiding judge who responded that the stenographers were not obligated to transcribe except in appeals, were no longer under his jurisdiction, and that the parties were not entitled to transcription free of charge. Opposing counsel, Atty. Manuel Fernandez, filed a motion to declare Cabansag in contempt for the allegedly scurrilous letter; Cabansag countercharged. Judge Morfe dismissed both motions but ordered Cabansag (and subsequently his attorneys when it appeared they aided in composing and sending the letter) to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for sending a letter that tended to degrade the court before the President and the people.
Central Legal Issues on Appeal
The trial court framed the issues as: (a) whether the letter tended directly or indirectly to place the lower court in disrepute, or to belittle, degrade or embarrass it in its administration of justice; and (b) whether sending the letter to the PCAC tended to draw executive intervention in a way that would undermine the judicial independence of the lower court.
Governing Doctrines: Contempt Power and the Right to Petition
The Court acknowledged the well-established, inherent power of courts to preserve their dignity and integrity by punishing contempts (citing Philippine authorities). That power, however, must be balanced against constitutional protections — particularly the right of citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances. The opinion recognized that both judicial independence and the right of petition (and by analogy freedom of speech/press principles) are fundamental and may at times come into conflict; neither right is absolutely superior to the other.
Standards for Restricting Expression Affecting Judicial Function
The opinion discussed two principal tests drawn from precedent for determining when speech may be punished to protect judicial administration: the "clear and present danger" test (requiring an extremely serious and imminent substantive evil to justify punishment) and the "dangerous tendency" test (permitting punishment where utterances have a natural tendency or probable effect to bring about substantive evils the State may prevent). The Court relied on a line of authorities (as cited in the record) that clarify these standards and emphasize that contempt sanctions for speech are permissible only where there is no doubt that the utterances pose a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
Court’s Analysis of the Letter under the Tests
Applying those standards to the facts, the Supreme Court found that the letter did not exhibit intent to degrade the judiciary nor did it produce a serious imminent threat to the fair administration of justice. Key factual and legal reasons:
- The letter’s critical phrase plainly targeted opposing counsel’s alleged "tactical maneuvers" and complained of delay due to non-transcription of stenographic notes; it did not directly attack the court’s integrity.
- The record demonstrated a factual basis for grievance: long pendency, prior court orders requesting transcription, reassignment of stenographers, and inaction from Dec. 1952 to Aug. 1954. Those circumstances made the appeal to executive agencies understandable.
- Sending the communication to PCAC was not inherently contemptuous because PCAC was an executive office created to receive complaints against government officials; the PCAC’s role and the Department of Justice’s supervisory relationship to courts under the administrative code rendered the Secretary of Justice a reasonable recipient. Thus the letter was a petition to the executive branch for assistance, rather than an attempt to unduly influence or intimidate the judiciary.
- On the evidence, the communication did not present the sort of imminent or probable danger to the administration of justice required to sustain a contempt conviction under either the "clear and present danger" or the "dangerous tendency" standards.
Treatment of the Attorneys and Court’s Disposition
The Court differentiated between the lay client’s conduct and that of his counsel. While Cabansag’s understandable frustration as a lay litigant warranted constitutional protection, the lawyers advisi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-8974)
Case Reference
- Reporter citation: 102 Phil. 152.
- G.R. No.: L-8974.
- Decision date: October 18, 1957.
- Decision by: Bautista Angelo, J.
- Nature of proceeding: Contempt proceeding arising from Civil Case No. 9564 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
Parties
- Plaintiff (original, appellant/respondent in contempt proceeding): Apolonio Cabansag.
- Defendants (in underlying ejectment suit): Geminiana Maria Fernandez, et al.
- Respondents and appellants (in contempt proceeding): Apolonio Cabansag, Roberto V. Merrera, Rufino V. Merrera.
- Counsel mentioned for defendants: Atty. Manuel Fernandez.
- Other participants: Special Counsel of the Department of Justice (allowed to appear as amicus curiae in official capacity); other members of the local bar (allowed to appear for respondents).
Nature and Disposition in Lower Court
- The contempt proceeding grew out of Civil Case No. 9564, an ejectment action filed by Apolonio Cabansag.
- The trial court found Cabansag and his lawyers guilty of contempt for sending a letter to the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission (PCAC) and for their involvement in that letter.
- Sentences imposed by the trial court: Apolonio Cabansag fined P20; Roberto V. Merrera fined P50; Rufino V. Merrera fined P50. The court warned that a repetition of the offense would be more severely dealt with.
- Respondents appealed the trial court’s contempt conviction to the Supreme Court.
Procedural and Factual Background of the Underlying Ejectment Case (Civil Case No. 9564)
- Complaint filed by Apolonio Cabansag: January 13, 1947, seeking ejectment of Geminiana Fernandez, et al., from a parcel of land covered by a Torrens title.
- Defendants’ answer filed: January 31, 1947.
- Motion to dismiss by defendants: February 2, 1947; the motion was denied.
- Case was set for hearing at plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for July 30, 1947; hearing postponed to August 8, 1947.
- On August 8, 1947: only one witness testified; case postponed to August 25, 1947.
- Subsequent incidents and proceedings: claim for damages by defendants; motion for writ of preliminary injunction set for hearing March 23, 1948; alleged contempt for violation of a parties’ agreement approved by the court. Pleadings filed as to these incidents; court set the matter for hearing October 27, 1948; hearing postponed to December 10, 1948.
- December 10, 1948: only part of the evidence received; next hearing scheduled for January 20, 1949; postponed to January 24, 1949 when again only part of evidence was received; matter continued to October 4, 1949.
- October 4, 1949 (Judge Villamor presiding): upon petition of both parties, court ordered the stenographers who took the notes during previous hearings to transcribe them within 15 days upon payment of their fees; hearing postponed until transcript submitted.
- Despite the order, stenographers failed to transcribe notes; hearing later set for March 17, 1950 and postponed again to March 23, 1950 and March 27, 1950.
- Hearings were had on dates recorded in the source including: August 9, 1850; August 23, 1960; September 26, 1950; November 29, 1950 (source lists these dates as hearings were had but the case was only partly tried).
- Further continuations and partial hearings: January 30, 1951 and February 19, 1951 (set for continuation); partial hearings February 20, 1951, March 12, 1951, June 6, 3951 (as cited in source), followed by three more postponements; partial hearing August 15, 1951.
- Trial continued March 6, 1952, postponed to May 27, 1952; no hearing took place on May 27, 1952; case set for continuation on December 9, 1952.
- December 9, 1952 (Judge Pasicolan presiding): court issued order suggesting parties arrange with the stenographers who took down the notes to transcribe their respective notes and stated the case would be set for hearing after submission of the transcript.
- From December 9, 1952 to August 12, 1954: no further step taken by court or contending parties in the case.
Creation of PCAC and Cabansag’s Letter
- Executive Order No. 1 (creating the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission, PCAC): issued December 30, 1953 when President Magsaysay assumed office.
- Executive Order No. 19 (superseding PCAC-related order): promulgated March 17, 1954.
- On August 12, 1954, Apolonio Cabansag wrote a letter to the PCAC (copy furnished to the Secretary of Justice and the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan), expressing grievance and requesting help to terminate his long-pending case. The source reproduces the letter and includes quoted passages, among them:
- A general expression of gratitude for creation of PCAC: “We, poor people of the Philippines are very grateful for the creation of your Office.”
- Complaint of deprivation of land: “The undersigned has long since been deprived of his land thru the careful maneuvers of a tactical lawyer.”
- Cause for delay alleged: “The said case which had long been pending could not be decided due to the fact that the transcript of the records has not, as yet, been transcribed by the stenographers who took the stenographic notes.”
- Difficulty posed by stenographers’ reassignment: “The stenographers who took the notes are now assigned in another courts.”
- Appeal for PCAC help and confidence in the Office and the President: “Now, then, Mr. Chief, the undersigned relies on you to do your utmost best to bring justice to its final destination. My confidence reposes in you. Thanks. Most confidently yours, (Sgd.) Apolonio Cabansag Plaintiff.”
Administrative and Clerk Responses to Cabansag’s Letter
- Upon receipt of the letter, the Secretary of Justice indorsed it to the Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, instructing him to require the stenographers concerned to transcribe their notes in Civil Case No. 9564.
- Clerk of Court, upon receipt of instruction on August 27, 1954, referred the matter to Judge Jesus P. Morfe before whom the case was then pending and informed him that the two stenographers concerned, Miss Illuminada Abello and Juan Caspar, had already been assigned elsewhere.
- Judge Morfe, on the same date (August 27, 1954), wrote the Secretary of Justice informing him that under Act No. 2383 and Section 12 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the stenographers were not obliged to transcribe their notes except in cases of appeal; that the parties were not poor litigants entitled to free transcription; and that the stenographers were no longer under his jurisdiction.
Motions for Contempt and Show Cause Orders
- September 1, 1954: Atty. Manuel Fernandez, counsel for defendants, filed a motion before Judge Morfe praying that Apolonio Cabansag be declared in contempt of court for an alleged scurrilous remark in the letter to the PCAC—specifically, that Cabansag said he “has long been deprived of his land ‘thru the careful maneuvers of a tactical lawyer’.”
- Counsel for Cabansag replied with a counter-charge praying that Atty. Fernandez be declared in contempt because of certain contemptuous remarks in his pleading.
- September 14, 1954: Judge Morfe dismissed both the charges and counter-charges but ordered Cabansag to show cause in writing within ten days why he should not be held liable for contempt for sending the letter to the PCAC which tended to degrade the court in the eyes of the President and the people.