GR 24981; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24981 January 30, 1970
MARTIN V. DELGRA, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. ALFREDO I. GONZALES, Presiding Judge, Branch II, Court of First Instance of Davao, and THE CHIEF OF POLICE, Davao City, respondents.
FACTS
On September 13, 1965, during the cross-examination of witness Pascuala Kudera in Criminal Case 8666 (People v. Florencio Suarez, et al.) for attempted robbery with physical injuries, an incident occurred. Defense counsel Amado Ceniza asked a question based on the official English translation of the witness’s Cebuano testimony, which was “I called their names.” Assistant Provincial Fiscal Martin V. Delgra, Jr., the petitioner, objected, stating the correct translation was that the witness said she called “Angel” and they answered “Nang.” When the defense counsel followed up with a question premised on the allegedly incorrect translation, Fiscal Delgra again insisted on a correction. Respondent Judge Alfredo I. Gonzales repeatedly directed the witness to answer, overruling the fiscal’s objections and denying his requests to speak and for reconsideration. The judge then ordered the bailiff to take Fiscal Delgra to jail for defiance. The bailiff did not immediately execute the order. Later that day, upon learning of the non-compliance, Judge Gonzales issued a written order finding Fiscal Delgra guilty of direct contempt and directing the Chief of Police to arrest and imprison him for 24 hours. Fiscal Delgra filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order declaring petitioner in direct contempt of court and ordering his imprisonment.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The Court held that respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. The transcript revealed no contumacious words or acts by Fiscal Delgra that would constitute direct contempt under Section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. His insistence on correcting a material and substantial alleged misinterpretation was a legitimate exercise of his duty and right. The judge should have patiently listened and ruled on the objection instead of cutting the fiscal short. The power to punish for contempt is drastic and should be used sparingly. The Court emphasized that judges should be temperate, patient, and courteous to counsel, avoiding controversies. The contempt order was declared null and void, and the preliminary injunction was made permanent. Costs de officio.