G.R. No. 30280 , March 25, 1929
NICANOR CARAG, petitioner, vs. THE WARDEN OF THE PROVINCIAL JAIL, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN, and Honorable CATALINO SEVILLA, Judge of First Instance of Cagayan, respondents.

FACTS

Attorney Nicanor Carag represented the contestee in an election contest before Judge Catalino Sevilla. During the trial, the judge asked Carag to state the nature of his client’s defense. Carag replied it was a general denial and special defenses. When the judge asked him to specify the special defenses, Carag said he did not remember and they were in the record. The judge then ordered Carag to read the answer himself. Carag repeatedly refused, suggesting the clerk read it instead, and claimed he had a hoarse voice and was tired. After the judge warned that disobedience would be punished, Carag stated he was willing to suffer the punishment. The judge then found Carag in direct contempt for disobedience and insubordination, ordering his immediate confinement in jail for ten days unless he complied. Carag was jailed and subsequently filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his acts did not constitute direct contempt and that the judge had no authority to compel him to read the answer.

ISSUE

Whether Attorney Nicanor Carag’s refusal to read his client’s answer in open court, upon the judge’s order, constituted direct contempt punishable summarily under Section 231 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RULING

YES. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and upheld the contempt order.
The Court held that Judge Sevilla acted within his jurisdiction under Section 132 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the judge to direct the defendant (through his attorney) to read the answer as the statement of defense. While the statute uses the permissive word “may,” it does not diminish the court’s authority to issue such a directive in the interest of orderly proceedings. Carag’s refusal to obey a lawful order of the court constituted misbehavior in the presence of the court, which is direct contempt under Section 231. His excuse of having a hoarse voice was belied by the fact that he was able to speak audibly and persistently to the judge. In direct contempt cases, the judge who witnesses the behavior is in the best position to judge its nature and the propriety of the summary punishment. Since the court acted within its jurisdiction in finding Carag in contempt, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to review the correctness or wisdom of that order. The punishment imposed was within the statutory limits.