G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PABLO S. RIVERA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The defendant-appellant, Pablo S. Rivera, was charged with constructive contempt in Criminal Case No. 1810. The case was set for hearing on July 16, 1948, in the municipal court of Bacolod, with Rivera notified in open court. On the hearing date, Rivera was absent. His lawyer appeared and explained that Rivera had gone to Manila due to a notice of hearing before the Supreme Court. The lower court found this explanation unsatisfactory and ordered Rivera to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. In his written explanation, Rivera stated he left for Manila on July 13 intending to return for the trial on July 16 but was unable to do so. He went to Manila to seek legal advice on filing a writ of prohibition against the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, who was trying the contempt case. After receiving advice on July 14 that a writ would not prosper, he sought an administrative remedy by attempting to consult the President of the Philippines. He failed to see the President on July 15 and was compelled to see him on the morning of July 16, the trial date. He asserted his failure to appear was not intentional disrespect but due to unavoidable circumstances. During the hearing, Rivera reiterated this explanation. The presiding judge, apparently irked by Rivera’s attempt to prevent him from trying the case, found the explanation unsatisfactory and declared him guilty of constructive contempt.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellant’s failure to appear at the trial constituted willful disobedience or disregard of the court’s authority, thereby warranting a finding of constructive contempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the order finding Rivera guilty of constructive contempt and acquitted him. The Court held that the term “disobedience” punishable as constructive contempt implies willfulness. Rivera’s failure to appear was not willful or deliberate but due to circumstances not entirely of his own making. He left Bacolod expecting to return in time for the trial but was delayed because he had to see the President on the trial date. He promptly advised the court of his inability to attend through his counsel. His conduct was not disrespectful. Furthermore, his purpose in going to Manila to consult an attorney about seeking a writ of prohibition against the trial judge was not an act of defiance or disregard of the court’s dignity. Litigants are allowed to exhaust all legal remedies, such as seeking disqualification of judges, without being deemed disrespectful. The power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the preservative principle, not the vindictive principle.