G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967
Domingo V. Austria, petitioner, vs. Hon. Antonio C. Masaquel, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Domingo V. Austria was a plaintiff in Civil Case No. 13258 for recovery of lands. After a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, defendant Pedro Bravo retained a new counsel, Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, who was a former associate of the presiding respondent Judge, Antonio C. Masaquel, when the judge was still in private practice. The judge granted several motions favorable to the defendant, including a stay of execution, setting aside a receivership, and granting a new trial. On the morning of the retrial, petitioner, through his counsel, verbally requested the judge in chambers to inhibit himself because the defendant’s lawyer was the judge’s former associate. The judge rejected the request, stating it was not a legal ground for disqualification. When the case was called in open court, the judge questioned petitioner directly. Petitioner confirmed he authorized the request and, when asked by the judge if he doubted the judge’s integrity and impartiality because of the former association, petitioner answered “Yes, sir.” The respondent Judge immediately declared petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court and imposed a fine of P50.00, which petitioner paid under protest.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and in excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioner guilty of direct contempt of court and imposing a fine.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the contempt order. The Court held that petitioner’s request for inhibition, based on a justifiable apprehension arising from the judge’s former association with the opposing counsel, was made in a manner that was not disrespectful, insulting, or offensive. The power to punish for contempt is to be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle and should be used sparingly. The Court noted that judges may disqualify themselves for valid reasons beyond those enumerated in the rules. Petitioner’s expression of doubt, prompted by rumors and the sequence of rulings, did not constitute the malicious, arrogant, or belligerent behavior required for contempt. The fine was ordered refunded.