In the matter of the proceedings against MARCELINO AGUAS for contempt of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA.
FACTS:
During a trial on August 29, 1900, the presiding judge cautioned a witness, Angel Alberto, to look at the judge instead of the defense attorney. As the witness did not heed the warning, the judge left the bench, approached the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and turned him around (or shook him, according to the defense attorney’s account) while telling him to look at the judge. Attorney Marcelino Aguas, counsel for the defendant, immediately rose to protest the judge’s action as coercive, demanded that the incident be recorded, and moved for a postponement of the hearing. Two days later, the clerk recorded the incident and noted prior instances where Aguas had allegedly used improper phrases and interrupted opposing counsel. Based on this, the court found Aguas in contempt and suspended him from legal practice for twenty days. Aguas appealed, but the lower court disallowed the appeal. He was granted a hearing in justification, after which the court again found him guilty of contempt based on a finding that he had risen in a “menacing attitude” with a trembling voice and body during his protest. The same penalty was imposed, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether Attorney Marcelino Aguas’s conduct in protesting the judge’s action constituted contempt of court, thereby justifying his suspension from the practice of law.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of contempt. The Court held that the judge’s act of seizing the witness by the shoulders was unwarranted and an unlawful interference with a witness’s freedom from personal violence while testifying. Against such conduct, Aguas had the right to protest and to request a record of the incident, provided it was done respectfully and with due regard for the court’s dignity. The sole basis for the contempt finding was the conclusion that Aguas’s attitude was “menacing.” The Supreme Court ruled that this was a mere conclusion of law or fact unsupported by concrete evidence of specific disrespectful or offensive acts. In the absence of testimony detailing the specific behavior from which the “menacing” conclusion was drawn, the record failed to establish facts sufficient to justify a finding of contempt. The judgment was reversed, with costs de oficio.
