GR L 4338; (December, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑4338
FACTS
– In December 1906 several co‑owners of the “Calabbacao” hacienda sold an 8/15 interest to Fred W. Prising, but the deed was never entered in the Registry of Deeds.
– Domingo Maggay, owning the remaining 2/15, learned of the sale in March 1907 and filed a petition in the Cagayan Court of First Instance to compel disclosure of the sale terms and to redeem his co‑ownership share.
– During depositions taken by Judge Newton W. Gilbert (acting as commissioner), attorneys Alfred B. Jones and J. Courtney Hixson were questioned about the receipt of three ₱30,000 promissory notes that Prising claimed they had delivered for safekeeping.
– Jones invoked attorney‑client privilege and Section 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, refusing to answer. The judge overruled the objection, held Jones in contempt, and ordered his arrest pending compliance.
– Jones filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the judge lacked jurisdiction to order his detention and that his contempt conviction was void for lacking a proper information or complaint.
ISSUE
1. Whether an attorney’s refusal to answer questions, invoking privileged communication, constitutes contempt punishable by a court‑ordered arrest.
2. Whether the judge‑commissioner had the authority to compel testimony and impose contempt sanctions in the deposition proceedings.
3. What statutory limits govern the penalty for contempt in this context.
RULING
– The Court affirmed that the commissioner, under §§ 355, 356, 361 and the subpoena power of § 366 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had full jurisdiction to take depositions and enforce testimony.
– The refusal to answer a lawful, court‑ordered question is contempt under §§ 231 and 232. The attorney‑client privilege does not shield disclosure of facts concerning the existence, receipt, or disposition of the promissory notes, which are pertinent to the plaintiff’s right to redeem the co‑owned land.
– Consequently, Jones’s contempt is valid, and the judge‑commissioner may impose the summary punishment prescribed by § 231: a fine not exceeding ₱200 and/or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days. The broader indeterminate sentences of §§ 236‑237 do not apply.
– The petition for habeas corpus was denied; the arrest was within the judge’s lawful authority.