G.R. No. L-6694, March 26, 1912
MARIANO NARCIDA, et al. vs. BURTON E. BOWEN, Chief of Police

FACTS

Petitioners Mariano Narcida, Rafael Santos, Norberto Penisin, and Calixto Macaraig were subpoenaed to testify before the justice of the peace of Zamboanga. They willfully disobeyed the subpoena. The justice of the peace, after a hearing, found them guilty of contempt and sentenced each to pay a fine of P3, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Upon non-payment, they were ordered confined in jail for 24 hours. They immediately filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance (CFI), which granted the writ and ordered their release, ruling that the justice of the peace lacked authority to impose such fine or imprisonment for disobeying a subpoena under Section 65 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) as amended by Act No. 1627 . The chief of police appealed.

ISSUE

Whether a justice of the peace has the power to punish for contempt by imposing a fine or imprisonment for the willful disobedience of a subpoena issued by his court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s judgment ordering the petitioners’ release. The power of a justice of the peace is statutory and limited. While justices of the peace have authority to issue subpoenas (under Sections 68 and 410 of Act No. 190 ) and to compel attendance by warrant and payment of costs for willful failure to obey, they do not possess inherent or statutory power to punish such disobedience as contempt with a fine or imprisonment. Section 65 of Act No. 190 , as amended, only grants justices of the peace summary power to punish for direct contemptsmisbehavior in their presence or so near as to obstruct judicial duties, or acts constituting “open defiance of his authority” (e.g., refusal to be sworn or answer questions in court). Disobeying a subpoena is a constructive contempt (committed outside the court’s presence), for which the statute provides a specific remedy (warrant and costs) but not punitive fines or imprisonment. Since the justice of the peace acted beyond his statutory authority, the confinement was illegal.