GR L 2382; (May, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2382. May 27, 1949.
PABLO S. RIVERA, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pablo S. Rivera, a defense counsel, was convicted of contempt by the municipal court for refusing to comply with an order to submit a list of defense witnesses. He appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The provincial fiscal filed an information charging him with direct contempt for allegedly distorting the court’s order and displaying an arrogant attitude. During the pendency of this case in the CFI, Judge Arellano set it for hearing. Rivera, who was in Manila seeking legal assistance, failed to appear on the scheduled date despite a telegram requesting postponement. Judge Arellano initially ordered his arrest but later required him to show cause. After a hearing, Judge Arellano found Rivera guilty of contempt and fined him P50. Rivera filed a notice of appeal, but Judge Arellano disapproved it, ruling that the contempt was direct and therefore not appealable. Rivera filed a combined petition for certiorari (to set aside the CFI proceedings) and mandamus (to compel Judge Arellano to allow his appeal).
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition for certiorari is proper to review the CFI proceedings.
2. Whether the contempt committed by Rivera before Judge Arellano was direct or indirect, and consequently, whether his conviction is appealable.
RULING
1. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court held that certiorari does not lie because Rivera had a complete and adequate remedy by appeal through the ordinary course of filing a motion to quash and, if denied, pleading and appealing from an adverse decision on the merits. The Court will not interfere with criminal proceedings absent a clear lack of jurisdiction.
2. The petition for mandamus is granted. The Court ruled that the contempt committed by Rivera (failure to appear at the scheduled hearing) was indirect contempt, not direct contempt. Direct contempt under Section 1, Rule 64 consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court as to interrupt proceedings. Rivera’s absence from court when his case was called constituted disobedience to a lawful court order or process, which falls under the enumeration of indirect contempt in Section 3(b), Rule 64. Convictions for indirect contempt are appealable. Therefore, Judge Arellano erred in disapproving the appeal. The respondent judge is directed to give due course to Rivera’s appeal.
AI Generated by Armztrong.