AUSTRIA vs.

MASAQUEL
20 SCRA 1247

FACTS:
Petition for a writ of certiorari to annul or set aside the order respondent Judge... declaring petitioner
Domingo V. Austria guilty of... contempt of court and imposing upon him a fine of P50.00

Petitioner was one of the plaintiffs in the above-mentioned Civil Case No. 13258,[1] against Pedro Bravo for
the recovery of three parcels of land... after trial, respondent Judge rendered a decision declaring the plaintiffs the
owners of the three parcels of land in question and ordering the defendant to vacate the lands and pay the...
plaintiffs damages only with respect to the land located at Bayambang.

Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, a former assistant or associate of respondent Judge when the latter was still in the
practice of law before his appointment to the bench, entered his appearance as the new counsel for defendant
Pedro Bravo.

Atty. Sicat filed a motion for new trial and to set aside the judgment and, over the vigorous objection of
plaintiffs,... the respondent Judge granted the said motion before the opening of the court's session.

Atty. Daniel Macaraeg, counsel for petitioner and his co-plaintiffs, saw respondent Judge in his chamber and
verbally transmitted to him the request of petitioner that he (the Judge) inhibit... himself from further hearing the case
upon the ground that the new counsel for the defendant, Atty. Mariano C. Sicat, was his former associate. The
respondent Judge, however, rejected the request because, according to him, the reason for the request of his
inhibition is not one... of the grounds for disqualification of a judge provided for in the Rules of Court.

When the above-entitled case was called for hearing, the Presiding Judge called on one of the plaintiffs who
was present, namely, Domingo Austria, and inquired from the latter if it was true that he asked his lawyer Atty.
Macaraeg to approach the Judge in chambers and to ask... him to disqualify himself from trying this case because
defendant's lawyer Atty. Sicat was formerly associated with the said Judge.

To this query Domingo Austria answered in the affirmative. When he was also asked as to whether the said
Domingo Austria has lost faith in the... sense of fairness and justice of the Presiding Judge of this Court simply
because of his former association with the defendant's lawyer, said Domingo Austria likewise answered in the
affirmative.

The Court considers the actuation of the plaintiff Domingo Austria, in the premises, as offensive, insulting
and a reflection on the integrity and honesty of the Presiding Judge of this Court and shows his lack of respect to
the Court. Rumors being circulated by the defendant Pedro Bravo that he will surely... win in the present case
because of his new lawyer, Atty. Marciano C. Sicat.

The Court believes that rumors of the sort do not serve as a sufficient basis or justification for the plaintiff
Domingo Austria to insinuate bias and partiality, on the part of the Court and to express... openly his loss of faith and
confidence in the integrity, fairness and capability of the Presiding Judge of this Court to perform his sworn duty of
upholding and administering justice, without fear or favor, and by reason of which this Court denied the verbal
motion to... reconsider filed by counsel for the plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner was guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same or had committed an act of disrespect toward the court or
judge.

RULING:
It is our considered view that when the petitioner requested respondent Judge to inhibit himself from further
trying the case upon the ground that the counsel for the opposite party was the former associate of the respondent
Judge,... petitioner did so because he was impelled by a justifiable apprehension which can occur in the mind of a
litigant who sees what seems to be an advantage on the part of his adversary; and that the petitioner made his
request in a manner that was not disrespectful, much less... insulting or offensive to the respondent Judge or to the
court.
 The apprehension of petitioner regarding the probable bias of respondent Judge does not appear to be
groundless or entirely devoid of reason.We believe that the petitioner the layman that he is did not take a belligerent
or arrogant attitude toward respondent Judge. What he did was to request his lawyer, Atty. Macaraeg, to approach
respondent Judge in his chamber and suggest to him to refrain from hearing the case... on the new trial, precisely in
order that respondent Judge might not be embarrassed or exposed to public odium. There is nothing in the record
which shows that when respondent Judge refused to disqualify himself, the petitioner insisted in asking for his
disqualification.

While We consider it improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in chambers and talk to him about a
matter related to the case pending in the court of said judge, in the case now before Us we do not consider it as an
act of contempt of court when petitioner asked his... counsel to see respondent Judge in his chamber and request
him to disqualify himself upon a ground which respondent Judge might consider just or valid.

The petitioner had not misbehaved in court, or in the presence of respondent Judge, as to obstruct or
interrupt the... proceedings. Neither did the petitioner act in a manner that was disrespectful to respondent Judge.
When petitioner answered "Yes, sir" to the question asked by respondent Judge, petitioner simply expressed his
sincere feeling under the circumstances.

GALLO vs. CORDERO

245 SCRA 219

NESTLE PHILIPPINES INC. vs. SANCHEZ

154 SCRA 542

FACTS:
The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-
Olalia had been conducting pickets which intensified during the period of July 8-10, 1987 outside Padre Faura gate
of the SC building since June 17, 1981.

On July 10, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity to withdraw
graciously and requiring the union leaders and their counsels and other individuals to appear before the Court on
July 14 and then and there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas,
counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, was further required to show cause why he should not be
administratively dealt with.

Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized to the Court with an
assurance that such acts will not be repeated. He prayed for the Court’s leniency considering that the picket was
actually spearheaded by the leaders of the PAMANTIK, an unregistered loosed alliance of about 75 unions in the
southern Tagalog area and not by either the UFE or KILU.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents should be held in contempt and Atty. Espinas be administratively dealt with.

RULING:
Grievances, if any, should be ventilated to the proper channels, i.e., through appropriate petitions, motions
or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrator of justice entitled to
“proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its
functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.

“It is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of
fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence
produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or
sympathies.”

The acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of the Court, but equally a
violation of the constitutional right of the adverse party and the citizenry at large to have their causes tried fairly.
 The right of free speech and of assembly of the individuals herein are not violated because any attempt to
pressure or influence courts of justice through the exercise of either rights amounts to an abuse thereof and is no
loner within the ambit of constitutional protection. However, being non-lawyers, the duty and responsibility of
advising them rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record, Atty. Espinas. It is the duty of
all members of the legal profession as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum
and proper attitude toward courts of justice. The contempt charges were dismissed.

MARTELINO vs. ALEJANDRO

32 SCRA 106

CRUZ vs. SALVA

105 PHIL 1151

FACTS:
A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, de Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo
et al. guilty of murder. They all appealed and Castelo sought new trial. Castelo was again found guilty. President
Magsaysay ordered reinvestigation. Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing to
persons other than those convicted.

Castelo et al wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct reinvestigation on basis of new confessions. Fiscal conferred
w/ SolGen and the Justice Sec decided to have the results of investigation made available to counsel for appellants.
Chief of Phil Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions. Salva organized a
committee for reinvestigation and subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in
the new affidavits and confessions.

Cruz’ counsel questioned jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct preliminary investigation bec
the case was pending appeal in the SC. Counsel filed this present petition. Salva said he subpoenaed Cruz bec of
Cruz’ oral and personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation. SC issued writ of preliminary injunction
stopping the prelim investigation.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Salva and his committee can push through with the investigation

2. Whether or not Cruz can be compelled to appear and testify before Salva

3. Whether or not Salva conducted the investigation property

RULING:
1. Yes. SC believed Salva that it was Cruz who personally reqested to allow him to appear at the
investigation. Normally, when a criminal case handled by fiscal is tried and decided and appealed to a higher court,
functions of fiscal have terminated. However, Salva has justified his reinvestigation bec in the orig case, one of the
defendants (Salvador Realista y de Guzman) was not included in the trial.

The duty of a prosecuting attorney is not only to prosecute and secure conviction of the guilty but also to
protect the innocent. Writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. Investigation may continue. Petition for certiorari and
prohibition granted in part, denied in part.

2. No. Under the law, Cruz had right to be present at the investigation but he need not be present. His
presence is more of a right than a legal obligation.

3. No. Salva shld have done investigation privately in his office and not publicly in the session hall of
Municipal Court of Pasay where microphones were installed and media people were present. He should also not
have made the media people ask questions. SC was disturbed and annoyed by such publicity. Salva is publicly
reprehended and censured.