G.R. No. L-2039, January 21, 1949
In re Vicente Sotto, for contempt of court.

FACTS

Respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto, author of the Press Freedom Law ( Republic Act No. 53 ), published a statement in newspapers criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision in In re Angel Parazo. He called the majority of the Court “incompetent or narrow minded,” accused them of “so many blunders and injustices,” and announced a plan to introduce a measure for the Court’s complete reorganization, calling it “a constant peril to liberty and democracy.” The Court required him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent’s published statement constitutes contempt of court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found Vicente Sotto guilty of contempt. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in courts of superior jurisdiction and is essential to maintain their authority and the administration of justice. While fair criticism of a final decision is tolerated, Sotto’s statement went beyond criticism. It was a scurrilous attack, calculated to intimidate or influence the Court, and to degrade its authority. The statement implied the Court was dishonest and unjust, constituting clear contempt. The Court imposed a fine of P1,000 or subsidiary imprisonment, and ordered Sotto to retract his statement. The ruling reaffirms that freedom of the press does not protect publications intended to bully courts or sway judgment on pending cases, as such interference must be checked to preserve an independent judiciary and the effective administration of justice.

AI Generated by Armztrong.