GR L 14637; (August, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14637; August 24, 1960
ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF, Surigao, Surigao, respondents.
FACTS
In Civil Case No. 384 of the Court of First Instance of Surigao, respondent Judge Teofilo B. Buslon issued an order dated October 31, 1958, requiring petitioner Atty. Rodrigo Matutina to appear on November 5, 1958, to show cause why he should not be declared in contempt of court for using derogatory language in his pleading dated October 30, 1958. On November 5, 1958, Matutina filed a “Manifestation” requesting to be informed of the specific words or phrases considered derogatory so he could intelligently prepare his defense and asking for three days to submit his explanation. On the same day, without Matutina’s attendance, the respondent judge issued an order for his arrest. The Provincial Sheriff attempted to arrest Matutina but found him bed-ridden with influenza, prompting the judge to verbally suspend the arrest until further orders. Matutina filed this petition seeking to annul the arrest order, compel the judge to specify the derogatory language, and obtain injunctive relief and damages.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge’s order for the immediate arrest of petitioner Atty. Rodrigo Matutina for contempt of court was justified under the circumstances.
RULING
No, the order of arrest was not justified. The Supreme Court held that contempt of court requires a contumacious attitude or defiance of the court, which was not evident here. Petitioner had promptly responded to the show-cause order by filing a respectful manifestation seeking clarification of the specific derogatory language and time to prepare his defense. His absence from the court session on November 5, 1958, was due to illness (influenza), which also led to the suspension of his arrest. The Court noted that the expressions used in his pleading, describing the court’s action as “vague, uncalled for and unjust,” merely conveyed his opinion that the order was erroneous and did not constitute blatant disrespect. Until his motion for specification was resolved, the arrest order was premature. The Court also waived the requirement for a prior motion for reconsideration due to the urgency of the arrest order and the improbability of relief from the respondent judge. Accordingly, the order of arrest issued on November 5, 1958, was set aside.