Supreme Court · En Banc
In re Aguas
- People vs. SandiganbayanG.R. No. 238877 · March 22, 2023 · First Division
- Salvador Dela Fuente, et al. vs. Marilyn E. GimenezG.R. No. 214419 · November 17, 2021 · Third Division
- First Division Cat Realty Corporation vs. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), et al.G.R. No. 208399 · June 23, 2021 · First Division
- Spouses Rosario vs. Government Service Insurance SystemG.R. No. 200991 · March 18, 2021 · First Division
- Republic of the Philippines vs. N. Dela Merced & Sons, Inc.G.R. Nos. 201501, 201658 · January 22, 2018 · First Division
- Silicon Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 182737 · March 2, 2016 · First Division
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Toledo Power CompanyG.R. Nos. 195175, 199645 · August 10, 2015 · First Division
- Hedcor, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 207575 · July 15, 2015 · First Division
- China Banking Corporation vs. City Treasurer of ManilaG.R. No. 204117 · July 1, 2015 · Second Division
- Hontiveros-Baraquel vs. Toll Regulatory BoardG.R. No. 181293 · February 23, 2015 · First Division
- Northern Mindanao Power Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 185115 · February 18, 2015 · First Division
- Nippon Express Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 185666 · February 4, 2015 · First Division
- AT&T Communications Services Philippines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 185969 · November 19, 2014 · First Division
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc.G.R. No. 183421 · October 22, 2014 · First Division
- Miramar Fish Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 185432 · June 4, 2014 · Second Division
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Silicon Philippines, Inc.G.R. No. 169778 · March 12, 2014 · Second Division
- Procter & Gamble Asia Pte Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 202071 · February 19, 2014 · First Division
- CBK Power Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. Nos. 198729, 198730 · January 15, 2014 · First Division
- Applied Food Ingredients Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. No. 184266 · November 11, 2013 · First Division
- Indoyon, Jr. vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 193706 · March 12, 2013 · En Banc
- Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership vs. Commissioner of Internal RevenueG.R. Nos. 193301, 194637 · March 11, 2013 · Second Division
- Galvez vs. Court of AppealsG.R. Nos. 187919, 187979 · April 25, 2012 · Second Division
- Marcos, Jr. vs. RepublicG.R. Nos. 189434, 189505 · April 25, 2012 · Second Division
- Chamber of Real Estate and Builders' Associations, Inc. vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo, et al.G.R. No. 160756 · March 9, 2010 · En Banc
- GD Express Worldwide N.V. and Amihan Management Services, Inc. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. 136978 · May 8, 2009 · Second Division
- Abayon vs. Commission on ElectionsG.R. No. 181295 · April 2, 2009 · En Banc
- Gandol vs. People of the PhilippinesG.R. Nos. 178233, 180510 · December 4, 2008 · Third Division
- Magaling vs. OngG.R. No. 173333 · August 13, 2008 · Third Division
- Aurora Tamayo vs. People of the Philippines and Heirs of Pedro SottoG.R. No. 174698 · July 28, 2008 · Third Division
- Engr. Ranulfo C. Feliciano vs. Nestor P. VillasinG.R. No. 174929 · June 27, 2008 · En Banc
- Catu vs. Rellosa · February 19, 2008 · First Division
- Cañeda vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc.G.R. No. 152232 · February 26, 2007 · First Division
- People vs. CorpuzG.R. No. 168101 · February 13, 2006 · En Banc
- Cornelio C. Cruz vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.G.R. No. 165586 · June 15, 2005 · First Division
- F.F. Marine Corporation and Mr. Eric A. Cruz vs. The Honorable Second Division National Labor Relations Commission and Ricardo M. MagnoG.R. No. 152039 · April 8, 2005 · Second Division
- Caingat vs. National Labor Relations CommissionG.R. No. 154308 · March 10, 2005 · First Division
- Philippine American Life and General Insurance Co. vs. GramajeG.R. No. 156963 · November 11, 2004 · Second Division
- People vs. Jose Oga y CalunodG.R. No. 152302 · June 8, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. PateoG.R. No. 156786 · June 3, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. AntonioG.R. No. 157269 · June 3, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. EscultorG.R. Nos. 149366, 149367 · May 27, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Jesus Moriles, Jr., et al.G.R. No. 153248 · March 25, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Warlito Tolentino y LaquinG.R. No. 139351 · February 23, 2004 · En Banc
- People of the Philippines vs. Li Yin ChuG.R. No. 143793 · February 17, 2004 · First Division
- People vs. YangG.R. No. 148077 · February 16, 2004 · En Banc
- People vs. GuamborG.R. No. 152183 · January 22, 2004 · First Division
- Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.G.R. No. 127473 · December 8, 2003 · Second Division
- People vs. MacabataG.R. Nos. 150493, 150494 · October 23, 2003 · En Banc
- Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. vs. Court of AppealsG.R. No. 142381 · October 15, 2003 · First Division
- People vs. GregorioG.R. No. 153781 · September 24, 2003 · First Division
- and 33 more
Counted from decisions in our library that cite this case by G.R. number or Philippine Reports page. Some citations can't be matched, so the true count may be higher.
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
En Banc
[ G.R. No. 12, August 8, 1901 ]
In the matter of the proceedings against MARCELINO AGUAS for contempt of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA. Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, representing the, respondents.
Claudio Gabriel, for appellant.
Smith, J.:
It appears from the record in this matter that on the 29th of August, 1900, during the progress of a trial then being held before the Court of First Instance at Bacolor, in the Province of Pampanga, the court had occasion to caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look at the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the judge who was at the time examining him. It seems that the witness did not give heed to this warning, and the judge thereupon arose from his seat and approaching the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and using the expression, "Lingon ang mucha" ("Look at me"), either shook him, as insisted by the attorney for the defendant, or only turned him about, as claimed by the judge and others. Whether the witness was shaken or only turned about, at all events "seizing him," brought the defendant's attorney to his feet, who, protesting against the action of the judge as coercive of the witness, demanded that a record be made of the occurrence and that the further hearing of the case be postponed. Two days afterward the clerk entered in his record as recital of the incident substantially as above, and also a statement that on other and prior occasions the attorney, Marcelino Aguas, had been wanting in respect to the court by making use of "improper phrases," and by interrupting opposing counsel in their examination of witnesses. The court on this record adjudged the attorney to be in contempt of court and suspended him from the practice of his profession for a period of twenty days. The attorney appealed, but his appeal having been disallowed by the lower court, he asked to be heard in justification, which was granted.
On the hearing in justification evidence was taken touching the contempt alleged to have been committed by Señor Aguas, from which the court found that during the trial of the case of Roberto Toledo vs. Valeriano Balatbat, the judge, having had occasion to seize the witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulders to turn him around, Señor Aguas, attorney for defendant, had risen from his seat in a "menacing attitude," and "with a voice and body trembling"protested that the action of the judge was coercive of the witness; and further that his attention being called to the fact that he was wanting in respect to the court and that he should sit down, he waived his right to go on with the trial and moved a postponement of the hearing. On this finding the court again adjudged the attorney guilty of contempt of court, and suspended him from the practice of his profession for a period of twenty days. From this judgment Señor Aguas appealed to this court.
In our opinion the action of the judge in seizing the witness, Alberto Angel, by the shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the appellant had the right to protest and to demand were respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the court. The only question, therefore in this case is, Was the appellant respectful and regardful of the court's dignity in presenting his objection and asking that it be recorded in the proceedings? The witnesses say and the judge finds that "his attitude was menacing" (bastante amenazadora) in the moment of making his protest, but beyond that there is nothing in the record which even tends to show that he was disrespectful to the court or unmindful of its dignity. In our opinion both testimony and finding state a mere conclusion which, in the absence of the facts from which it was deduced, is wholly valueless to support a judgment of contempt. The statement that the attorney's attitude was "menacing" tended no more to competently establish the alleged offense of contempt than if the witnesses had testified and the court had found that his conduct was "contemptuous or lacking in respect." The specific act from which it was inferred that his attitude was menacing should have been testified to by the witnesses and found by the court, and failing that, the record does not show concrete facts sufficient to justify the conclusion that he was disrespectful to the court or offensive to its dignity.
The judgment appealed from must therefore be reversed, and it is so ordered, with costs de oficio.
Arellano, C.J., Cooper, Willard, Torres, and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.