G.R. No. L-11223; March 16, 1959
PABLO VENTURA y CLARIN, ANGELINA ANG and BUENAVENTURA EVANGELISTA, petitioners, vs. HON. JUDGE NICASIO YATCO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, LUZ VENTURA and FERNANDO GOROSPE, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Pablo Ventura y Clarin and his wife Angelina Ang de Ventura filed a complaint for partition and damages against respondents Luz Ventura and her husband Fernando Gorospe (Civil Case No. Q-1831). They alleged co-ownership of two registered parcels of land in Quezon City since May 23, 1955, and that the respondents, who were in possession, refused to deliver their share, causing them loss of rentals. The defendants claimed the properties belonged to their parents, Pablo Ventura y Villalon and the deceased Luz Ventura y Clarin, and that they were staying there to accompany their aged father who had a lifetime right to possess the property. The father intervened, claiming ownership, to which the plaintiffs responded that they had bought one-half of the properties from the intervenor and his deceased wife.
During the hearing on July 11, 1956, while plaintiff Pablo Ventura y Clarin was testifying, the respondent judge declared petitioner Atty. Buenaventura Evangelista, counsel for the plaintiffs, in contempt of court twice: first, when Evangelista manifested that the judge was taking an active part in the proceedings, and second, when he asked for a suspension to file a motion for the judge’s disqualification. After Evangelista stated he would not present further evidence, the court, upon motion of the defendants’ counsel, dismissed the case. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and on August 30, 1956, the judge modified the dismissal order to be without prejudice. The petitioners also filed a motion for correction of the stenographic notes, which was denied. The petitioners sought certiorari to annul the orders of dismissal, the contempt citations, and the denial of the motion for correction.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. Q-1831.
2. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in denying the motion for correction of stenographic notes.
3. Whether the trial judge’s active participation in the proceedings showed bias, prejudice, or hostility, and whether the contempt citations against petitioners’ counsel were proper.

RULING

1. On the dismissal of the case: The Supreme Court held that the proper remedy for the order of dismissal (modified to be without prejudice) was an appeal, not certiorari. Therefore, the petition in this respect was dismissed.
2. On the denial of the motion for correction of stenographic notes: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The court stenographer had certified to the correctness of the transcript, and no competent evidence was presented to show any mistakes or irregularity in its preparation.
3. On the judge’s participation and the contempt citations: The Court, after a careful review of the transcript, found that while the judge actively participated in the examination of witnesses, his interventions were aimed at clarifying points, directing evidence to the decisive issues (specifically, whether ownership of the properties had actually been transferred to the plaintiffs), and expediting the trial. The Court found no evidence of prejudice, bias, or hostility. It emphasized that judges should take an active part in trials to ensure orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, clarify ambiguities, and focus on material issues. The Court concluded that the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing the contempt fines, as counsel’s remarks were insulting and the second fine was for reiterating the insult.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition for certiorari was denied, with costs against the petitioners.