G.R. No. L-20108 December 28, 1964
ALAN A. BAKEWELL, petitioner-appellee, vs. JUDGE JOSE T. LLOREN, Justice of the Peace of ITOGON, BENGUET, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Justice of the Peace Jose T. Lloren was conducting a preliminary examination of witnesses within the compound of the Baguio Gold Mining Company in Itogon, Benguet, with permission from the company’s general superintendent, Alan A. Bakewell. During the proceedings, Bakewell interrupted and insulted a witness under investigation. Lloren suspended the proceedings and cited Bakewell to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. Instead of appearing personally, Bakewell submitted a written explanation through his counsel. Lloren considered this explanation improper and contemptuous and, deeming it insufficient compliance, set a hearing date requiring Bakewell or his counsel to appear. Upon their failure to appear, Lloren issued an order directing that Bakewell be brought before him pursuant to Section 3, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. A warrant was served, and Bakewell was placed in custody but was later released the same day due to a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of First Instance in a certiorari petition filed by Bakewell (Special Civil Action No. 752). The Court of First Instance rendered a decision holding that Lloren committed an abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant and made the injunction permanent.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Justice of the Peace may validly issue a warrant of arrest to compel the personal appearance of one charged with contempt before him even though that person has filed, through counsel, a written answer.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. Citing the ruling in Francisco, et al. v. Enriquez, it held that where the accused appears by counsel and submits an explanation for not appearing, it is an abuse of discretion to insist on his personal appearance absent a showing that he was the only one who could give a legally admissible answer. The fact that Bakewell’s answer was not under oath did not remove it from this ruling, as the Rules did not require a verified answer when submitted under the signature of counsel, whose signature constitutes a certificate of good faith. Furthermore, citing Esparagoza, et al. vs. Tan, etc., et al., the power to compel personal appearance under the Rules can only be exercised if good reasons exist justifying it. No sufficient reason existed in this case since an explanation had already been tendered. If the explanation was unsatisfactory, the proper course was to proceed with the contempt proceedings in accordance with the Rules, or if the return was insolent or libelous, to take proper criminal or administrative action in the regular course of law. The appealed decision was affirmed.