GR 45905; (September, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45905 ; September 6, 1938
ENRIQUE MEDINA, petitioner, vs. PABLO S. RIVERA, Acting Judge of First Instance of Oriental Negros, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Enrique Medina, an attorney, filed an ex parte motion in five civil cases pending before respondent Judge Pablo S. Rivera, seeking postponement of trial. The motion contained allegations that, due to an administrative complaint Medina had filed against the judge and other prior incidents, a “strained and unpleasant situation” existed. It insinuated the judge harbored bias against Medina and his clients, was “after all human,” and cited past adverse rulings as evidence. Medina also stated he would not withdraw from the cases to avoid “disloyalty and cowardice.” Judge Rivera found the language offensive and ordered Medina to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. At the hearing, Medina offered to amend the objectionable phrases if the court specified them, but the judge refused, demanding an unconditional withdrawal and promise not to use offensive language. When Medina asked for ten days to file amended motions, the judge denied it. The judge then found Medina guilty of direct contempt, sentencing him to a P200 fine or ten days’ imprisonment. Medina paid the fine under protest and sought certiorari to annul the order and recover the fine.
ISSUE
Whether the statements in Medina’s motion constituted direct contempt of court, and whether the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction in summarily punishing Medina without granting an appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The statements in the motion, which implied the judge was incapable of impartiality and acted vindictively, constituted direct contempt. Direct contempt includes scandalous or insulting matter in a pleading filed with the court, as it directly affects the court’s dignity and authority. The procedure for direct contempt under the Code of Civil Procedure is summary and does not grant a right to appeal. The judge therefore acted within his jurisdiction in imposing the fine summarily and denying an appeal. Medina’s offer to amend did not justify the contemptuous language, which was offensive per se. The Court cited precedent, including In re Vicente J. Francisco, where similar disparaging remarks against a court were punished as contempt in facie curiae.
AI Generated by Armztrong.