Case Summary (A.C. No. 7121 [Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1244)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: The Supreme Court (proceeding initiated by the Court itself to vindicate the administration and independence of justice). Respondent: Atty. Vicente Sotto, author of Republic Act No. 53 (the Press Freedom Law), who published the statement that triggered contempt proceedings.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
- December 7, 1948: Court required respondent to show cause for contempt.
- Respondent requested and was granted an extension to file an answer; the answer was filed late but admitted.
- Hearing originally set on January 4, 1949, later postponed to January 10, 1949; respondent did not appear and the case was submitted for decision.
- Judgment: Court found respondent guilty of contempt and imposed penalties; respondent was ordered to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The decision is rendered under the constitutional and statutory framework extant at the time of decision (the 1935 Constitution). The Court relied on: (1) its rule-making authority in matters of pleading, practice, and procedure (referred to as section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution in the opinion); (2) Rule 64 of the Supreme Court rules (which reproduces sections 231–236 of Act No. 190, the old Code of Civil Procedure); and (3) the inherent power of courts of superior jurisdiction to punish for contempt. The Court also referred to relevant jurisprudence, including In re Kelly and cited American authorities on the inherent contempt power.
Statement at Issue
Respondent caused to be published a written statement criticizing the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Press Freedom Law in the Angel Parazo case, asserting that the Court had "erroneously interpreted" the law and accusing the majority of being "incompetent" and "narrow minded." The statement went further, announcing the respondent’s intention, as a legislator, to introduce a measure in Congress to “completely reorganize” the Supreme Court and to reduce its membership—an expressed threat intended, in the Court’s view, to influence the pending reconsideration of the Parazo decision. The statement also contained accusations that the Court constituted “a constant peril to liberty and democracy” and other calumnious assertions attacking the Court’s honesty and integrity.
Respondent’s Defenses
Respondent admitted authorship of the publication but advanced multiple defenses: (1) that the Court lacked power under section 13, Article VIII to impose correctional penalties (arguing penal sanctions require statute enacted by Congress and the President’s approval); (2) that his publication was protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press and made in good faith without intent to offend individual justices; (3) that Rule 64 does not punish acts not punishable under the law or the inherent contempt power; and (4) that, as a senator and not a party or witness in the Parazo case, he could not be held for contempt.
Scope of the Supreme Court’s Contempt Power — Court’s Ruling
The Court held that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of superior jurisdiction and is essential to the exercise of their judicial functions; this principle was supported by both local precedent and American jurisprudence cited in the opinion. The Court observed that Rule 64 reproduces sections 231 and 232 (and related provisions) of Act No. 190 and that statutory authorization is unnecessary to the contempt power of superior courts, though such statutory provisions exist and provide procedural guidance (sections 231, 232, 235, 236, 236 reprinted in the opinion). Consequently, the Court rejected respondent’s contention that the Supreme Court lacked authority to impose correctional penalties or to punish contempt by virtue of its rule-making or inherent powers.
Precedents and Jurisprudential Basis
The Court relied on prior local precedent (In re Kelly, 35 Phil. 944) which held that publications reflecting on or tending to influence pending causes constitute misbehavior tending to obstruct the administration of justice and may be punished as contempt. The opinion also cited American treatises and cases to support the proposition that the contempt power is inherent in courts of general jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that mere fair criticism in good faith may be tolerated, but publications intended to influence, intimidate, or obstruct judicial decision-making—especially during pendency—fall outside protected speech and may be punished.
Court’s Analysis of the Statement’s Character
The Court distinguished permissible criticism of judicial rulings from the respondent’s statements. It found that respondent’s publication went beyond criticism: it contained a threat to use legislative power to reorganize and change the Court’s personnel and a deliberate attack on the Court’s honesty and integrity. The Court concluded the statement was made with the apparent purpose of intimidating the justices and influencing the pending Parazo reconsideration, thereby amounting to an attempt to obstruct the administration of justice. Although respondent alleged good faith and that he did not attack individual justices’ integrity, the Court found these contentions insufficient and belied by respondent’s subsequent public statements during the proceeding.
Effect on Judicial Independence and Administration of Justice
The Court stressed that assaults on the honesty and integrity of the Supreme Court—especially when coupled with threats of reorganization by a legislator during a pending case—tend to undermine public confidence in the judiciary and could drive citizens to take the law into their own hands. The Court held that an attorney and officer of the court owes a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary; a lawyer-senator’s conduct threatening the independence and free exercise of judicial functions is particularly culpable.
Sanctions Imposed
The Court found respondent guilty of contempt. It imposed a fine of P1,000 payable within fifteen days, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The Court declined to immediately impose incarceration (despite recognizing the gravity), but it also ordered respondent to appear within the same fifteen-day period to show cause why he should not be disbarred for the publication and for subsequent public statements that misrepresented the nature of the charge against him.
Additional Statements and Misrepresentations by Respondent
The Court catalogued additional statements by respondent during the pendency of the proceedings—public utterances in newspapers and speeches asserting that imprisonment would not close his mouth, that the Court acted with malice in citing him, and other declarations that misrepresented the cause of the contempt charge (claiming it was mere criticism of the decision and defense of press freedom). The Court found these further misrepresentations reinforced culpability and contradicted the claim of good faith.
Concurring Opinion (Justice Perfecto) — Expanded Findings and R
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 7121 [Formerly CBD Case No. 04-1244)
Case Citation and Date
- Reported at 82 Phil. 595.
- Decision promulgated January 21, 1949.
- Proceeding styled: In re Vicente Sotto, for contempt of court.
Nature of Proceeding
- A contempt proceeding instituted by the Supreme Court of the Philippines against Atty. Vicente Sotto for a written statement published in Manila newspapers in connection with the Court's decision in In re Angel Parazo (the Parazo case).
- The contempt charge related to publication of an allegedly libelous and intimidating statement aimed at the Court and its members, and alleged intent to influence the Court's decision in a pending matter.
Statement Published (substance and text cited)
- The Court reproduced the respondent's published statement in full as it appeared in the Manila Times and other dailies.
- Key portions of the published statement included:
- Claim of authorship of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53).
- Regretful assertion that the High Tribunal had "erroneously interpreted said law" and had "put in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority of its members."
- An announcement that one of the first measures the respondent would introduce in the coming congressional sessions would be "the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court," including changing its members.
- Strong rhetorical language declaring the present Supreme Court to be "a constant peril to liberty and democracy" and contrasting it with earlier jurists (Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo) described as "honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary."
Procedural History
- On December 7, 1948, the Court ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for publishing the statement.
- Respondent requested and was granted a 10-day extension beyond the original five days to file his answer.
- His answer was filed after the expiration of the granted period but was nevertheless admitted.
- The Court set the case for hearing on January 4, 1949, later postponed to January 10, 1949.
- Respondent did not appear at the date set for hearing; the Court submitted the case for decision.
- The Court considered respondent’s answer and other submissions before rendering judgment.
Respondent’s Admissions and Denials
- Respondent did not deny the authenticity of the published statement; he admitted publication and did not deny the quoted text.
- He did not deny having published the threats, intimidations, false and calumnious charges as quoted.
- In his answer, respondent asserted:
- That under section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution the Supreme Court’s rule-making power is limited to pleading, practice and procedure and therefore the Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon citizens except by law enacted by Congress and promulgated with the approval of the Chief Executive.
- That he exercised freedom of speech in publishing the statement in good faith and without intention to offend or attack the honesty or integrity of any particular Justice; he asserted his criticism arose from his belief the Court had erroneously decided the Parazo case.
- The Court characterized other arguments in respondent’s answer as not deserving consideration.
Central Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court possesses the inherent power to punish for contempt of court independent of express statutory grant, and whether Rule 64 (or analogous provisions) may be used to punish respondent.
- Whether the published statement constituted contempt by attempting to intimidate or influence the Court’s decision in a pending case and by degrading or bringing the Court into disrepute.
- Whether respondent’s status as senator or his exercise of freedom of speech and of the press shields him from contempt proceedings.
- Whether the respondent’s claimed good faith and lack of intent to attack the Court’s integrity could mitigate or excuse liability.
Applicable Law, Rules and Precedents (as discussed by the Court)
- The Court relied on Rule 64 of its rules, noting that sections 1 and 3 of Rule 64 reproduce sections 231 and 232 of Act No. 190 (the old Code of Civil Procedure).
- The Court invoked the doctrine that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of superior jurisdiction, citing American jurisprudence and the Court’s prior decision in In re Kelly, 35 Phil., 944.
- Quoted principle from American jurisprudence (Contempt, 12 Am. Jur.) that the power to punish contempt is an essential element of judicial authority and exists independently of statutory authorization for courts of general jurisdiction.
- Quotation and reliance on the In re Kelly doctrine that publications reflecting on a court, parties, officers, counsel in reference to a pending suit, or publications tending to influence decision of a controversy, are misbehavior tending to obstruct administration of justice and are punishable as contempt.
- The Court cited Act No. 190 provisions (SEC. 231, 232, 235, 236) relating to contempts, summary punishment and available fines and imprisonments (including fines not exceeding P1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding six months for contempts under sec. 236).
Majority Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
- The Court emphasized that mere criticism in good faith of a court’s decision in a pending case may be tolerated but must be limited to criticism not intended to influence the final disposition or intimidate members.
- The Court found that the respondent’s publication did not merely criticize; it included a threat and intimidation by announcing legislative measures he would introduce to reorganize and change the membership of the Supreme Court.
- The Court reasoned that such announcement and language were intended to influence the final decision in the pending Parazo case and to embarrass or obstruct the administration of justice.
- The Court found the respondent’s language attacked the honesty and integrity of the Supreme Court and aimed to bring the Justices into disrepute, thereby tending necessarily to undermine public confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Court.
- The Court stressed the essential role of the Supreme Court as the last bulwark for Filipinos seeking relief and protection, and that undermining confidence in the Court risks disorder or chaos.
- As an officer of the court and a member of the bar, respondent had a duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court and not to promote distrust; respondent had sworn an oath of fidelity as an attorney.
- The Court held that asserted good faith may mitigate but does not exempt from liability; the Court noted respondent’s subsequent acts and statements during the pendency of the proceeding belied his claim of good faith.
- The Court concluded that the respondent’s statements were an attempt to intimidate and unduly influence the Court and therefore constituted contempt punishable by the Court’s inherent powers and by Rule 64/Act No. 190 authority.
Findings on Intent, Effect, and Characterization of Publication
- The Court characterized the publication as:
- A threat and intimidation to influence the Court’s handling of the pending Parazo case.
- Degrading and calumnious attacks on the Court’s majority members, asserting deliberate blunders and injustices over recent