LW1

Republic of the Philippines days afterward the clerk entered in his record a recital of the incident
SUPREME COURT substantially as above, and also a statement that on other and prior
Manila occasions the attorney, Marcelino Aguas, had been wanting in respect to
the court by making use of “improper phrases,” and by interrupting
EN BANC
opposing counsel in their examination of witnesses. The court on this
[G.R. No. 12. August 8, 1901. ] 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
In the matter of the proceedings against MARCELINO AGUAS for
attorney appealed, but his appeal having been disallowed by the lower
contempt of the COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PAMPANGA.
court, he asked to be heard in justification, which was granted.
Claudio Gabriel, for Appellant.
On the hearing in justification evidence was taken touching the contempt
Solicitor-General Araneta, representing the Respondent. alleged to have been committed by Señor Aguas, from which the court
found that during the trial of the case of Roberto Toledo v. Valeriano
SYLLABUS Balatbat, the judge, having had occasion to seize the witness, Alberto
1. CONTEMPT OF COURT; TREATMENT OF WITNESS. — An attorney Angel, by the shoulders to turn him around, Señor Aguas, attorney for
may rightfully protest against personal violence to a witness at the defendant, had risen from his seat in a “menacing attitude,” and “with a
hands of the court, and such protest, if respectful, is not contempt of voice and body trembling” protested that the action of the judge was
court. 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
2. ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT. — A finding that an attorney’s attitude toward down, he waived his right to go on with the trial and moved a
the court was “menacing” is a mere conclusion and will not support a postponement of the hearing. On this finding the court again adjudged
judgment of contempt. the attorney guilty of contempt of court, and suspended him from the
DECISION practice of his profession for a period of twenty days. From this
judgment Señor Aguas appealed to this court.
SMITH, J. :
In our opinion the action of the judge in seizing the witness, Alberto
It appears from the record in this matter that on the 29th of August, Angel, by the shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an
1900, during the progress of a trial then being held before the Court of interference with that freedom from unlawful personal violence to
First Instance at Bacolor, in the Province of Pampanga, the court had which every witness is entitled while giving testimony in a court of
occasion to caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look at justice. Against such conduct the appellant had the right to protest and
the attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the judge who to demand that the incident be made a matter of record. That he did so
was at the time examining him. It seems that the witness did not give was not contempt, providing protest and demand were respectfully
heed to this warning, and the judge thereupon arose from his seat and made and with due regard for the dignity of the court. The only question,
approaching the witness, seized him by the shoulders, and using the therefore in this case is, Was the appellant respectful and regardful of
expression, “Lingon ang mucha” (“Look at me”), either shook him, as the court’s dignity in presenting his objection and asking that it be
insisted by the attorney for the defendant, or only turned him about, as recorded in the proceedings? The witnesses say and the judge finds that
claimed by the judge and others. Whether the witness was shaken or “his attitude was menacing” (bastante amenazadora) in the moment of
only turned about, at all events “seizing him,” brought the defendant’s making his protest, but beyond that there is nothing in the record which
attorney to his feet, who, protesting against the action of the judge as even tends to show that he was disrespectful to the court or unmindful
coercive of the witness, demanded that a record be made of the of its dignity. In our opinion both testimony and finding state a mere
occurrence and that the further hearing of the case be postponed. Two
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.

LW1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LW1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LW1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines days afterward the clerk entered in his record a recital of the incident

You might also like