CANON 2 RULE 12.

03

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35867 June 28, 1973 FRANCISCO A. ACHACOSO, in his o n !eh"#$ "n% in !eh"#$ o$ C"&i'"# Insu("n)e * Su(e'+ Co., In)., vs. ,H- HON. CO.R, OF A//-ALS, CO,RA0, S.A., CA/I,AL LIF- ASS.RANC- COR/., JOA1.IN G. GARRI2O, respondents. Rodrigo M. Nera for petitioner. Norberto J. Quisumbing & R.P. Mosqueda for private respondent. RESOLUTION

,--HAN3--, J.: The Court censures the practice of counsels who secure repeated extensions of time to file their pleadin s and thereafter simpl! let the period lapse without su"mittin the pleadin or even an explanation or manifestation of their failure to do so. The Court herein reprimands petitioner#s counsel for such misconduct with the warnin that a repetition thereof will "e dealt with more severel!. Upon the filin on $ecem"er %&' %()* of the petition at "ar for review of the Court of +ppeals# decision dismissin petitioner#s petition for mandamus filed with said court to compel the ,anila court of first instance to allow petitioner#s proposed appeal from its adverse -ud ment dismissin plaintiff#s complaint' the Court per its resolution of $ecem"er **' %()* re.uired respondents to comment thereon. Respondents filed on /e"ruar! 0' %()1 an extensive ei hteen pa e comment and petitioner#s counsel' Rodri o ,. Nera' filed on /e"ruar! %*' %()1 a motion for leave to file repl! within %& da!s from notice alle in that there was need for such repl! 2in order that this 3onora"le Court ma! "e full! and completel! informed of the nature of the controvers! which ave rise to the instant petition.2 The Court ranted such leave per its resolution of /e"ruar! *1' %()1 and notice of such leave was served on counsel on /e"ruar! *)' %()1. On the last da! for filin of the repl!' vi4' ,arch %5' %()1 counsel as6ed for an additional %& da!s averrin that 2due to the pressure of ur ent professional wor6 and dail! trial en a ements of the undersi ned counsel durin the ori inal period ranted' he has not had sufficient material time to complete the preparation of petitioner#s repl!.2 The Court ranted the re.uested extension per its resolution of ,arch *7' %()1. On the last da! of the extended period for filin of the repl!' viz' ,arch *(' %()1 counsel a ain as6ed for still another %&8da! extension statin that 2due to the pressure of ur ent professional wor6 and dail! trial en a ements of the undersi ned counsel' he has not had sufficient material time to complete the preparation of petitioners repl!. The undersi ned counsel hum"l! apolo i4es that in view of his crowded schedule' he has "een constrained to as6 for this extension' "ut respectfull! assures the 3onora"le Court that this will "e the last one re.uested.# +s per its resolution of +pril 9' %()1' the Court ranted counsel#s motion for such third and last extension.

The period for the filin of petitioner#s repl! lapsed on +pril %1' %()1 without counsel havin filed an! repl! manifestation explainin his failure to do so. +ccordin l!' the Court in its resolution of ,a! *5' %()1 den!in the petition for review for lac6 of merit' further re.uired petitioner#s counsel to show cause wh! discipline action should not "e ta6en a ainst him for failure to file the repl! after havin o"tained such leave and three extensions time within which to do so. Counsel filed in due course his verified Explanation dated :une )' %()1 statin that he was retained in the ease 2on a piece8wor6 "asis on the ver"al understandin that all expenses for the preparation of pleadin s and the cost of services of steno rapher8t!pist shall "e furnished in advance "! petition upon "ein notified thereof'2 that when he as6ed for a third extension on ,arch *(' %()1' he so informed petitioner and re.uested him to remit the expenses for the preparation of repl! as per a reement2 and that he tried to contact petitioner "efore the expiration of the extended period "ut failed to do as petitioner 2was then most of the time out of his office.2 Counsel relates that it was onl! on ,a! 17' %()1 when he received notice of the Court#s resolution of ,a! *5' %()1 den!in the petition and re.uirin his explanation ; lon after the expiration on +pril %1' %()1 of the extended period for the filin of the repl! ; that he wrote petitioner and in turn as6ed the petitioner to explain the latter#s failure to compl! with his re.uest for a remittance of <&77.77 to cover the necessar! expenses' and that petitioner had replied that counsel#s letter had "een misplaced "! a cler6 and hence' petitioner had 2failure to act on the same.2 Counsel pleads that 2this counsel has not the least intention of dela!in the administration of -ustice and much less trifle with the resolutions and orders of this 3onora"le Court. The ina"ilit! of this counsel to su"mit the repl! within the extension ranted "! this 3onora"le Court was due to supervenin circumstances which could not "e attri"uted to this counsel and that 2if this poor and hum"le practitioner has "een impelled to inaction it surel! was not intentional on his part' the truth of the matter "ein that this counsel was -ust helpless in the face of petitioner#s failure to compl! with his commitments aforesaid=2 and that 2this counsel deepl! re rets this incident and here"! apolo i4es to this 3onora"le Court for all his shortcomin s relative to this case' which after all were due to causes and circumstances not of his own ma6in and far "e!ond his control.2 Counsel#s explanation is far from satisfactor!. If indeed he was not in a financial position to advance the necessar! expenses for preparin and su"mittin the repl!' then he could have filed timel! the necessar! manifestation that he was fore oin the filin of such repl! on petitioner#s "ehalf. 3is inaction undul! dela!ed the Court#s prompt disposition of the case after the filin "! respondents on /e"ruar! 0' %()1 of their comments on the petition showin its lac6 of merit. The Court would have then so disposed of the petition had it not "een for petitioner#s plea to "e iven time and opportunit! to file a repl! to the comments in order to full! apprise the Court of the nature of the controvers!' which plea the Court ranted in reliance on his ood faith. >et after havin o"tained three extensions of time for the filin of the repl!' counsel simpl! failed to file an! repl! nor to ive the Court the courtes! of an! explanation or manifestation for his failure to do so. Counsel readil! perceived in his explanation that his conduct comes close to dela!in the administration of -ustice and triflin with the Court#s processes. It does not reflect well on counsel#s conduct as an officer of the Court that after assurin the Court that the third extension re.uested "! him 2in view of his crowded schedule2 and 2of ur ent professional wor6 and dail! trial en a ements2 would "e the last within which period he would at last file the awaited repl!' for him thereafter to let the period simpl! lapse without an! explanation whatsoever' and worse' to wait to "e found out' and have the Court re.uire him to explain. Considerin ' however' that counsel#s record shows no previous infractions on his part since his admission to the <hilippine ?ar in %(&1' the Court is disposed to "e lenient in this instance. +CCOR$IN@L>' the Court here"! administers a reprimand on +tt!. Rodri o ,. Nera' with the warnin that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall "e dealt with more severel!. Let a cop! of this resolution "e filed in his personal record.

CANON 2 RULE 12.04

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

A.C. No. 3923. March 30, 1993. CONCORDIA B. ARCIA! co"plainant! #s. ATT$. CRISANTO %. FRANCISCO! &espon'ent. S$%%AB(S ). %E A% ET*ICS+ MISCOND(CT OF CO(NSE%+ VIO%ATION OF OAT* NOT DE%A$ AN$ MAN OR MONE$ OR MA%ICE+ S(SPENSION FOR ONE $EAR FROM PRACTICE OF %A, FOR ROSS AB(SE OF RI *T OF RECO(RSE TO T*E CO(RTS B$ AR (IN A CA(SE T*AT IS OBVIO(S%$ ,IT*O(T MERIT. - The cause of the &espon'ent.s client is ob#iousl/ 0ithout "e&it. The &espon'ent 0as a0a&e of this fact 0hen he 0ilfull/ &eso&te' to the 1a"bits su""a&i2e' abo#e! continuousl/ see3in1 &elief that 0as consistentl/ 'enie'! as he shoul' ha#e e4pecte' . . . B/ 1&ossl/ abusin1 his &i1ht of &ecou&se to the cou&ts fo& the pu&pose of a&1uin1 a cause that ha' been &epeate'l/ &ebuffe'! he 0as 'is'ainin1 the obli1ation of the la0/e& to "aintain onl/ such actions o& p&ocee'in1s as appea& to hi" to be 5ust an' such 'efenses onl/ as he belie#es to be honestl/ 'ebatable un'e& the la0. B/ #iolatin1 his oath not to 'ela/ an/ "an fo& "one/ o& "alice! he has bes"i&che' the na"e of an hono&able p&ofession an' has p&o#e' hi"self un0o&th/ of the t&ust &epose' in hi" b/ la0 as an office& of the Cou&t . . . Fo& this se&ious t&ans1&ession of the Co'e of P&ofessional Responsibilit/! he 'ese&#es to be sanctione'! not onl/ as a punish"ent fo& his "iscon'uct but also as a 0a&nin1 to othe& la0/e&s 0ho "a/ be influence' b/ his e4a"ple. Acco&'in1l/! he is he&eb/ S(SPENDED fo& ONE $EAR f&o" the p&actice of la0 an' f&o" the en5o/"ent of all the &i1hts an' p&i#ile1es appu&tenant to "e"be&ship of the Philippine ba&. RESO%(TION PER C(RIAM! p6 In a s0o&n co"plaint file' 0ith the Cou&t on Octobe& 7! )889! Conco&'ia B. a&cia see3s the 'isba&"ent of Att/. C&isanto %. F&ancisco. On Ma&ch 8! )87:! Conco&'ia B. a&cia an' he& husban' o'of&e'o! the Dionisio spouses! an' Felisa an' Ma1'alena Baetion1 leashe' a pa&cel of lan' to Sote&o Balu/ot %ee fo& a pe&io' of 9; /ea&s be1innin1 Ma/ )! )87:. Despite &epeate' #e&bal an' 0&itten 'e"an's! %ee &efuse' to #acate afte& the e4pi&ation of the lease. %ee clai"e' that he ha' an option to e4ten' the lease fo& anothe& ; /ea&s an' the &i1ht of p&e<e"ption o#e& the p&ope&t/. In this 'isba&"ent case! the co"plainant clai"s that %ee.s counsel! &espon'ent F&ancisco! co""ence' #a&ious suits befo&e 'iffe&ent cou&ts to th0a&t a&cia.s &i1ht to &e1ain he& p&ope&t/ an' that all these p&ocee'in1s 0e&e 'eci'e' a1ainst %ee. The p&ocee'in1s ste""e' f&o" the sai' lease cont&act an' in#ol#e' the sa"e issues an' pa&ties! thus #iolatin1 the p&osc&iption a1ainst fo&u"<shoppin1. Respon'ent! in his co""ent! sa/s that he inse&te' in 'efense of his client.s &i1ht onl/ such &e"e'ies as 0e&e autho&i2e' b/ la0. The tan1le of &ecou&ses e"plo/e' b/ F&ancisco is na&&ate' as follo0s6 ). On Ma&ch 98! )8=8! %ee! th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' a co"plaint a1ainst a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s fo& specific pe&fo&"ance an' &econ#e/ance 0ith 'a"a1es in the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/. This 0as 'oc3ete' as Ci#il Case No. ><=8<9))=. On ?une 8! )8=8! a&cia file' a "otion to 'is"iss the co"plaint on the

1&oun's of failu&e to state a cause of action! laches an' p&esc&iption. The case 0as 'is"isse' b/ ?u'1e Feli"on Men'o2a on Au1ust )@! )8=8. 9. On Ma/ 98! )8=8! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s file' a co"plaint fo& unla0ful 'etaine& a1ainst %ee in the Met&opolitan T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/. This 0as 'oc3ete' as Ci#il Case No. ):;;. Th&ou1h F&ancisco! %ee file' an ans0e& alle1in1 as special an' affi&"ati#e 'efense the pen'enc/ of Ci#il Case no. ><=8<9))= in the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/. On Septe"be& ;! )8=8! ?u'1e Ma&celino Bautista issue' a &esolution &e5ectin1 this alle1ation on the 1&oun' that the issues befo&e the t0o cou&ts 0e&e sepa&ate an' 'iffe&ent. A. On Octobe& 9:! )8=8! %ee! th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' 0ith the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/ a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i an' p&ohibition 0ith p&eli"ina&/ in5unction a1ainst ?u'1e Bautista! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s. This 0as 'oc3ete' as ci#il Case No. ><=8<A=AA. In filin1 this petition! F&ancisco 3ne0 o& shoul' ha#e 3no0n that it #iolate' the Rule on Su""a&/ P&oce'u&e p&ohibitin1 the filin1 of petitions fo& ce&tio&a&i! "an'a"us o& p&ohibition a1ainst an/ inte&locuto&/ o&'e& issue' b/ the cou&t. F&ancisco clai"s that 0hat he appeale' to the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t in Ci#il Case No. ><=8<A=AA 0as the 'enial of his p&a/e& fo& 'is"issal of Ci#il Case No. ):;;. This is not t&ue. Ci#il Case ><=8<A=AA 0as clea&l/ a special ci#il action an' not an appeal. On No#e"be& )A! )8=8! ?u'1e Ab&aha" Ve&a issue' an o&'e& en5oinin1 ?u'1e Bautista f&o" p&ocee'in1 0ith the t&ial of the unla0ful 'etaine& case. (pon "otion of the co"plainant! ho0e#e&! the in5unction 0as set asi'e an' Ci#il Case No. ><=8<A=AA 0as 'is"isse' on ?anua&/ 8! )88@. %ee 'i' not appeal. :. On Ap&il 7! )88@! %ee th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i an' p&ohibition 0ith p&a/e& fo& p&eli"ina&/ in5unction 0ith the Cou&t of Appeals a1ainst ?u'1e Ve&a! ?u'1e Sin12on! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s. Doc3ete' as CA .R. Sp No. 9@:B7! the petition assaile' the ?anua&/ 8! )88@ o&'e& of ?u'1e Ve&a 'is"issin1 Ci#il Case No. ><=8<A=AA. On Ma/ A)! )8=8! the petition 0as 'enie'. ;. On ?une ):! )88@! ?u'1e Sin12on 'eci'e' Ci#il Case no. ):;; in fa#o& of co"plainant a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s. %ee 'i' not appeal. Instea'! on! ?une 9)! )88@! th&ou1h F&ancisco a1ain! he file' a petition a1ainst ?u'1e Sin12on an' the othe& lesso&s fo& ce&tio&a&i an' annul"ent of the 'ecision in Ci#il Case No. ):;; an' 'a"a1es 0ith p&a/e& fo& issuance of p&eli"ina&/ in5unction. This 0as 'oc3ete' as Ci#il case No. 8@<;=;9 in the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/! B&anch 8=! p&esi'e' b/ ?u'1e Cesa& C. Pa&ale5o. In F&ancisco.s co""ent befo&e us! he alle1es that Ci#il Case No. ><8@<;=;9 is an appeal f&o" the unla0ful 'etaine& case. A1ain! he lies. Ci#il Case No. ><8@<;=;9 0as a specifie' ci#il action an' not an appeal. On ?ul/ 9! )88@! a&cia.s 1&oup file' an O"nibus Motion to Dis"iss Ci#il Case No. 8@<;=;9. On ?ul/ )A! )88@! ?u'1e Pa&ale5o issue' an o&'e& en5oinin1 ?u'1e Sin12on f&o" enfo&cin1 the 'ecision in that case. a&cia attac3e' this o&'e& in a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i an' p&ohibition 0ith p&a/e& fo& p&eli"ina&/ in5unction 'oc3ete' as CA Sp. No. 99A89. The petition 0as 1&ante' b/ the Cou&t of Appeals on Septe"be& )8! )88)! on the 1&oun' that the 5u'1"ent in the unla0ful 'etaine& case ha' co"e final an' e4ecuto&/ as ?une A@! )88@. 7. On Septe"be& 9:! )88)! a&cia file' a "otion fo& e4ecution in the unla0ful 'etaine& case. On Septe"be& 9B! )88)! %ee! th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' a "otion to inhibit ?u'1e Sin12on an' to 'efe& the hea&in1 of the "otion. A 0&it of e4ecution 0as nonetheless issue' b/ ?u'1e Sin12on on Octobe& =! )88). B. T0o 'a/s late&! %ee! th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' 0ith the Sup&e"e Cou&t a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i 0ith p&eli"ina&/ in5unction an' te"po&a&/ &est&ainin1 o&'e& a1ainst the Cou&t of Appeals! ?u'1e Sin12on! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s. This Cou&t 'enie' the petition on ?anua&/ 9B! )889! an' &econsi'e&ation on Ap&il =! )889. =. Finall/! %ee! still th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' a petition fo& ce&tio&a&i 0ith p&eli"ina&/ in5unction a1ainst ?u'1e Sin12on! a&cia an' the othe& lesso&s in the Re1ional T&ial Cou&t of >ue2on Cit/ to set asi'e an' 'ecla&e the 0&its of e4ecution in Ci#il Case No. ):;;. This 0as 'is"isse' on Au1ust :! )889! an' %ee! th&ou1h F&ancisco! file' a "otion fo& &econsi'e&ation. Acco&'in1 to F&ancisco! he 0as &elie#e' as counsel 0hile this "otion 0as pen'in1. A la0/e& o0es fi'elit/ to the cause of his client but not at the e4pense of t&uth an' the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice. The cause of the &espon'ent.s client in ob#iousl/ 0ithout "e&it. The &espon'ent 0as a0a&e of this fact 0hen he 0ilfull/ &eso&te' to the 1a"bits su""a&i2e' abo#e! continuousl/ see3in1 &elief that 0as consistentl/ 'enie'! as he shoul' ha#e e4pecte'. *e the&eb/ a''e' to the al&ea'/ clo11e' 'oc3ets of the cou&ts an' 0aste' thei&

#aluable ti"e. *e also cause' "uch incon#enience an' e4pense to the co"plainant! 0ho 0as obli1e' to 'efen' he&self a1ainst his e#e&/ "o#e. B/ 1&ossl/ abusin1 his &i1ht of &ecou&se to the cou&ts fo& the pu&pose of a&1uin1 a cause that ha' been &epeate'l/ &ebuffe'! he 0as 'is'ainin1 the obli1ation of the la0/e& to "aintain onl/ such actions o& p&ocee'in1s as appea& to hi" to be 5ust an' such 'efense onl/ as he belie#es to be honestl/ 'ebatable un'e& the la0. B/ #iolatin1 his oath not to 'ela/ an/ "an fo& "one/ o& "alice! he has bes"i&che' the na"e of an hono&able p&ofession an' has p&o#e' hi"self un0o&th/ of t&ust &epose' in hi" b/ la0 as an office& of the Cou&t. Att/. C&isanto l. F&ancisco too3 his oath as a la0/e& on Ma&ch 9! )8;7. Consi'e&in1 his a1e an' e4pe&ience in the p&actice of the la0s! he shoul' ha#e 3no0n bette& than to t&ifle 0ith it an' to use it as an inst&u"ent fo& ha&ass"ent of the co"plainant an' the "isuse of 5u'icial p&ocesses. Fo& this se&ious t&ans1&ession of the Co'e of P&ofessional Responsibilit/! he 'ese&#es to be sanctione'! not onl/ as punish"ent fo& his "iscon'uct but also as a 0a&nin1 to othe& la0/e&s 0ho "a/ be influence' b/ his e4a"ple. Acco&'in1l/! he is he&eb/ S(SPENDED fo& ONE $EAR f&o" the p&actice of la0 an' f&o" the en5o/"ent of all the &i1hts an' p&i#ile1es appu&tenant to "e"be&ship in the Philippine ba&. %et a cop/ of this Resolution be se&#e' i""e'iatel/ on the &espon'ent an' ci&cula&i2e' to all cou&ts an' the Inte1&ate' Ba& of the Philippines. SO ORDERED. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-6294 Fe r!ar" 10, 1911

T#E UN$TE% STATES, plaintiff<appellee! #s. LEONC$O &ALLENA, 'efen'ant<appellant. Buencamino, Diokno, Mapa, Buencamino jr., Platon and Lontok for appellant. Attorney-General Villamor for appellee. TRENT, J.6 On the 9)st of Septe"be&! )8@8! the&e 0as t&ie' in the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of the subp&o#ince of Masbate c&i"inal case No. )7A! entitle' C(nite' States #s. Ana Ra"i&e2!C in 0hich the 'efen'ant 0as cha&1e' 0ith the c&i"e of pe&5u&/. The basis of this p&osecution 0as the false testi"on/ 1i#en b/ the 'efen'ant in a ce&tain c&i"inal case t&ie' in that cou&t 0he&ein one Ci&iaco Pelle5e&a 0as 'efen'ant! cha&1e' 0ith ho"ici'e! in that the sai' Pelle5e&a 'i'! b/ "eans of blo0s! cause the 'eath of the husban' of Ana Ra"i&e2. In this ho"ici'e case Ana Ra"i&e2 0as calle' as a 0itness! an'! afte& bein1 'ul/ s0o&n! testifie' that he& husban' 'ie' of fe#e& an' that 'u&in1 his illness! 0hich laste' "o&e than t0o 0ee3s! she obse&#e' no contusions o& othe& in5u&ies on his bo'/. She 'enie' ha#in1 testifie' un'e& oath befo&e the p&o#incial fiscal in the to0n of Di"asalan1! cont&a&/ to he& testi"on/ in this case! an' she also 'enie' ha#in1 been in the house of one ?ose %a&1o fo& the pu&pose of testif/in1 0ith &efe&ence to the 'eath of he& husban'. ,he&eas! as a "atte& of fact! she 'i' testif/! un'e& oath! befo&e the sai' fiscal! in that to0n! that he& husban' 'ie' as a 'i&ect &esult of the blo0s inflicte' b/ Pelle5e&a an' that his 'eath occu&&e' 0ithin th&ee 'a/s afte& ha#in1 &ecei#e' these blo0s. Ana Ra"i&e2 0as foun' 1uilt/ as cha&1e' an' sentence' acco&'in1l/. In the t&ial of this pe&5u&/ case on Estefania Ba&&u1a! "othe& of the 'efen'ant Ana! 0as a 0itness fo& the 'efen'ant! an' at the insti1ation of one %eoncio Ballena she testifie' that the fiscal! SeDo& Bailon! at the ti"e he 0as in Di"asalan1 "a3in1 the in#esti1ation into the cause of the 'eath of Ana.s husban'! atte"pte' to &ape he& 'au1hte& Ana! an' as3e' fo& the han' of the 1i&l in "a&&ia1e! but she 'i' not 'esi&e to accept this p&oposition of the fiscal because he 0as a "a&&ie' "an. SubseEuentl/ the&eto! an' on the 98th of Septe"be&! )8@8! the fiscal file' an info&"ation in the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of that p&o#ince a1ainst the sai' %eoncio Ballena! cha&1in1 hi" 0ith the c&i"e of subo&nation of

pe&5u&/. (pon this co"plaint the 'efen'ant 0as 'ul/ t&ie'! foun' 1uilt/! an' sentence' to si4 "onth.s i"p&ison"ent! to pa/ a fine of P;@@! to the co&&espon'in1 subsi'ia&/ i"p&ison"ent is case of insol#enc/! to the accesso&/ penalties p&o#i'e' fo& b/ la0! an' to pa/ the costs. F&o" this sentence an' 5u'1"ent the 'efen'ant appeale'! an' no0 insists that the testi"on/ b/ 1i#en b/ Estefania Ba&&u1a in that pe&5u&/ case 0as i""ate&ial to the issues in#ol#e' the&ein. If this contention be t&ue! the 'efen'ant is not 1uilt/. The&e a&e ce&tain 0ell<'efine' an' in'ispensable &eEuisites 0hich "ust be establishe' in e#e&/ case of subo&nation of pe&5u&/ befo&e an accuse' pe&son! cha&1e' 0ith the co""ission of this c&i"e! can be con#icte'. E#e&/ essential ele"ent constitutin1 the c&i"e of pe&5u&/ "ust be establishe' b/ co"petent testi"on/. The p&osecution "ust sho0 the natu&e of the p&ocee'in1s in 0hich the alle1e' pe&5u&/ 0as co""itte'! the cou&t! o& office&! in 0hich! o& befo&e 0ho"! the false oath 0as ta3en+ that the 0itness 0as 'ul/ s0o&n+ that the testi"on/ 0as "ate&ial! an' false+ that the 'efen'ant 3no0in1l/ an' 0illfull/ p&ocu&e' anothe& to s0ea& falsel/! an' that the 0itness subo&ne' 'i' testif/ un'e& ci&cu"stances &en'e&in1 hi" 1uilt/ of pe&5u&/. In the case at ba& the &eco&' sho0s be/on' an/ Euestion of a 'oubt that the 0itness Ba&&u1a! afte& bein1 'ul/ s0o&n! 'i' 3no0in1l/ an' 0illfull/ testif/ falsel/ in a c&i"inal case befo&e a 'ul/ constitute' t&ibunal+ that this 0itness so testifie' at the insti1ation of the 'efen'ant Ballena+ an' that the 'efen'ant 3ne0 that the testi"on/ 1i#en b/ the 0itness Ba&&u1a 0as false. The 0itness so info&"e' the 'efen'ant. Not0ithstan'in1 this info&"ation! the 'efen'ant st&on1l/ insiste' that b/ the 0itness Ba&&u1a testif/in1 that the fiscal co""itte' those acts 0oul' be the onl/ 0as to sa#e he& 'au1hte& f&o" i"p&ison"ent. The 'efen'ant not onl/ 3no0in1l/ an' 0illfull/ in'uce' this 0itness to s0ea& falsel/! but he 'i' so "aliciousl/! as it appea&s f&o" the &eco&' that he 0as an ene"/ of the fiscal at that ti"e! the fiscal ha#in1 p&osecute' hi" p&e#ious to this t&ial. So the onl/ Euestion to be 'ete&"ine' is! as 0e ha#e sai'! ,as the testi"on/ of Ba&&u1a "ate&ial to the issues in#ol#e' in that c&i"inal case a1ainst he& 'au1hte& fo& pe&5u&/F Mate&ialit/ is an essential ele"ent in the c&i"e of pe&5u&/. G(. S. vs. Est&aDa! )7 Phil. Rep.! ;9@.H It! the&efo&e! necessa&il/ follo0s that "ate&ialit/ is li3e0ise an in'ispensable &eEuisite in the c&i"e of subo&nation of pe&5u&/! as the latte& is 'e&i#e' f&o" the fo&"e&. The te&" ."ate&ial "atte&. "eans the "ain fact 0hich 0as the sub5ect of the inEui&/! o& an/ ci&cu"stance 0hich ten's to p&o#e that fact! o& an/ fact! o& ci&cu"stance! 0hich ten's to co&&obo&ate o& st&en1then the testi"on/ &elati#e to such inEui&/! o& 0hich le1iti"atel/ affects the c&e'it of an/ 0itness 0ho testifies. G>uote' 0ith app&o#al in (. S. #s. Est&aDa! supra.H In the c&i"inal case in 0hich the 0itness Ba&&u1a 1a#e that false testi"on/! the "ain Euestion in#ol#e' 0as 0hethe& o& not Ana Ra"i&e2 testifie' befo&e the p&o#incial fiscal that he& husban' 'ie' as a &esult of the blo0s inflicte' b/ Ci&iaco Pelle5e&a! as she ha' testifie' in the t&ial of the case a1ainst Pelle5e&a that she 'i' not so testif/ befo&e the fiscal. It is clea& that the false testi"on/ of Ana Ra"i&e2 a1ainst Pelle5e&a 0as "ate&ial. In the t&ial of the case a1ainst Ana fo& pe&5u&/ the&e 0as p&esente' a Euestion of fact as to 0hethe& o& not Ana testifie'! un'e& oath! befo&e the fiscal in that in#esti1ation that he& husban' 'i' in fact 'ie as a &esult of the 0oun's inflicte' b/ Pelle5e&a. The cou&t foun' this to be t&ue. It 0as i"po&tant to 3no0 0hethe& o& not the fiscal! at the ti"e Ana testifie' befo&e hi"! atte"pte' to &ape he& o& as3e' he& "othe& fo& pe&"ission to "a&&/ he&. If the fiscal ha' co""itte' these acts the/ 0oul' ha#e constitute' a st&on1 ci&cu"stance sho0in1 the innocence of Ana. The fiscal 0as the "o#in1 pa&t/ in the pe&5u&/ case an' it 0as upon his s0o&n co"plaint that Ana 0as p&osecute'. If he shoul' ha#e atte"pte' to p&osecute Ana afte& ha#in1 co""itte' these acts the cou&t 0oul' not onl/ ha#e 'isbelie#e' the fiscal! testif/in1 as a 0itness! but it 0oul' ha#e loo3e' upon the 0hole p&osecution as a fab&ication. The 5u'1"ent appeale' f&o" bein1 in acco&'ance 0ith the la0 an' the "e&its of the case! sa"e is he&eb/ affi&"e'! 0ith costs a1ainst the 'efen'ant. So o&'e&e'. Arellano, . !., Mapa, arson and Moreland, !!., conc&

CANON 2 RULE 12.04

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

EN BANC C.A. No. 226 Fe r!ar" 23, 1946

T#E PEOPLE OF T#E P#$L$PP$NES, plaintiff<appellee! #s. %ELF$N &AUT$STA, 'efen'ant<appellant. !ose Ma. "ecto for appellant. Actin# $irst Assistant %olicitor General Amparo and %pecial Attorney &amuco for appellee. O'AETA, J.( This appeal has been b&ou1ht to &e#e&se a 5u'1"ent of the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of %a1una! fin'in1 the appellant 1uilt/ of Eualifie' se'uction an' sentencin1 hi" to an in'ete&"inate penalt/ of f&o" ei1ht "onths to one /ea& an' ten "onths of prision correctional! to in'e"nif/ the offen'e' pa&t/! Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla! in the su" of P)!@@@! 0ith subsi'ia&/ i"p&ison"ent in case of insol#enc/! to suppo&t the offsp&in1 na"e' T&ini'a' Bautista! an' to pa/ the costs. The accuse'! Delfin Bautista! a1e' thi&t/ /ea&s! a Docto& of Me'icine! of San Pablo! %a1una! is a "a&&ie' "an! he ha#in1 cont&acte' "at&i"on/ in Vienna on Dece"be& )9! )8AB! 0ith ?osephine Pet&ac3 of that cit/! b/ 0ho" he has t0o chil'&en 0ho 0e&e bo&n in Octobe&! )8A= an' Octobe&! )8A8! &especti#el/. Afte& his &etu&n to the Philippines f&o" Vienna 0ith his nineteen</ea&<ol' 0ife in Ma/! )8A=! he establishe' his con5u1al ho"e at 9@ Basa St&eet! San Pablo! in a th&ee<sto&/ buil'in1 of 0hich the thi&' floo& containe' the be'&oo"+ the secon' floo&! the li#in1 &oo"! the 'inin1 &oo" an' the 3itchen+ an' the fi&st floo&! his clinic an' the office of his fathe&! En&iEue Bautista. The co"plaint Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla! 0ho 0as bo&n on Au1ust )7! )899! ente&e' the se&#ice as a house"ai' of the accuse' Docto& Bautista in Dece"be& )8A=! afte& he& pa&ents ha' cont&acte' an in'ebte'ness of PB@ 0ith En&iEue Bautista! the fathe& of the accuse'. In the "onth of Octobe& )8:@! afte& she ha' &eache' the a1e of ei1hteen /ea&s an' 0hile she 0as still in the se&#ice of the accuse'! the sai' co"plainant concei#e'! an' on ?une =! )8:)! 1a#e bi&th to a bab/ 1i&l 0ho" she ch&istene' T&ini'a' Bautista. Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla left the se&#ice of Docto& Bautista on ?anua&/ )=! )8:)! an' initiate' this c&i"inal p&osecution sho&tl/ the&eafte& a1ainst he& fo&"e& "aste&. It is alle1e' in he& co"plaint that f&o" the "onth of Ma/ )8A8 until the "onth of ?anua&/ )8:)! in the Cit/ of San Pablo! the accuse'! bein1 a 'o"estic an' a pe&son in cha&1e of the ca&e an' custo'/ of the co"plainant! a #i&1in o#e& t0el#e an' un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! b/ "eans of 'eceit! t&ic3e&/! an' abuse of confi'ence an' autho&it/ an' 0ith c&i"inal intent to 'ebauch! 'efile! an' 'is&epute he&! 'i' then an' the&e c&i"inall/! feloniousl/! ille1all/! an' #olunta&il/ ha#e se4ual inte&cou&ses 0ith the sai' co"plainant! as a &esult of 0hich she beca"e p&e1nant. Befo&e consi'e&in1 the inculpato&/ e#i'ence to 'ete&"ine 0hethe& o& not it is sufficient to o#e&co"e the p&esu"ption of innocence in fa#o& of the accuse'! 0e 'ee" it necessa&/ to cla&if/ the issue in the li1ht of the la0 applicable the&eto. It 0ill be note' f&o" 0hat has been sai' abo#e that the co"plaint e"b&aces t0o pe&io's 0hich "ust not be confuse'6 G)H f&o" Ma/ )8A8 to Au1ust );! )8:@! 0hen the co"plainant 0as un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e+ an' G9H f&o" Au1ust )7! )8:@! to ?anua&/ )8:)! 0hen she 0as o#e& ei1hteen /ea&s. This 'i#ision necessa&/ because! to 'ete&"ine the c&i"inal liabilit/ of the accuse' un'e& the co"plaint! the secon' pe&io' is absolutel/ i""ate&ial! inas"uch as un'e& the la0 the co"plainant coul' not be the ob5ect! no& coul' she co"plaint! of se'uction afte& she ha' &eache' the a1e of ei1hteen /ea&s. The alle1ations of the co"plaint co#e& both of the follo0in1 a&ticles of the Re#ise' Penal Co'e6 ART. AAB. 'ualified seduction. - The se'uction of a #i&1in o#e& t0el#e /ea&s an' un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! co""itte' b/ an/ pe&son in public autho&it/! p&iest! house<se&#ant! 'o"estic! 1ua&'ian! teache& o& an/ pe&son 0ho! in an/ capacit/! shall be ent&uste' 0ith the e'ucation o& custo'/ of the 0o"an se'uce'! shall be punishe' b/ prision correccional in its "ini"u" an' "e'iu" pe&io's.. 444 444 444

(n'e& the p&o#isions of this Chapte&! se'uction is co""itte' 0hen the offen'e& has ca&nal 3no0le'1e of an/ of the pe&sons an' un'e& the ci&cu"stances 'esc&ibe' he&ein..

ART. AA=. %imple seduction. - The se'uction of a 0o"an 0ho is sin1le o& a 0i'o0 of 1oo' &eputation! o#e& t0el#e but un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! co""itte' b/ "eans of 'eceit! shall be punishe' b/ arresto mayor. To 'ete&"ine 0hethe& the accuse' is 1uilt/ of ha#in1 se'uce' the co"plainant! i. e., of ha#in1 ha' ca&nal 3no0le'1e of he& 0hile she 0as a #i&1in o#e& t0el#e /ea&s an' un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e! onl/ the p&oofs of the alle1e' cohabitation bet0een the co"plainant an' the accuse' 'u&in1 the fi&st pe&io' e"b&ace' in the co"plaint can be consi'e&e'. In othe& 0o&'s! p&oofs of the alle1e' cohabitation subseEuent to Au1ust );! )8:@! 0hich &esulte' in co"plainant.s p&e1nanc/! cannot be ta3en into consi'e&ation fo& the &eason that she 0as then al&ea'/ o#e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e. As a "atte& of la0! the pate&nit/ of the &esultin1 offsp&in1 coul' not e#en be the sub5ect of 5u'icial inEui&/. Thus! a&ticle )A9 of the Ci#il Co'e p&o#i'es6 ART. )A9. ,hen the ac3no0le'1"ent is "a'e sepa&atel/ b/ the fathe& o& the "othe&! the na"e of the chil'.s othe& pa&ent shall not be &e#eale' b/ the pa&ent ac3no0le'1in1 it! no& shall an/ ci&cu"stance be "entione' b/ 0hich such pe&son "i1ht be &eco1ni2e'.. No public office& shall authenticate an/ 'ocu"ent '&a0n in #iolation of this p&o#ision an' shoul' he 'o so not0ithstan'in1 this p&ohibition shall be liable to a fine of f&o" )9; to ;@@ pesetas! an' the 0o&'s containin1 such &e#elation shall be st&ic3en out. (n'e& a&ticle ):) of the sa"e Co'e! 0ith t0o e4ceptions not pe&tinent he&ein! Cno cou&t shall pe&"it the filin1 of an/ co"plaint! the pu&pose of 0hich "a/ be to in#esti1ate! eithe& 'i&ectl/ o& in'i&ectl/! the pate&nit/ of ille1iti"ate chil'&en 0ho ha#e not the le1al status of the natu&al chil'&en.C In the case of (nfante vs. $i#ueras G: Phil.! BA=H! 0hich 0as an action to co"pel the 'efen'ant to &eco1ni2e a natu&al 'au1hte& as his! the t&ial cou&t pe&"itte' the "othe& an' the "ate&nal 1&an'"othe& of the chil' an' anothe& 0itness to testif/! a1ainst the ob5ection e4ception of the 'efen'ant! to the &elations 0hich e4iste' bet0een the 'efen'ant an' the "othe& of the sai' chil' p&io& to the bi&th of the latte&! an' that the 'efen'ant 0as the fathe& of the chil'. The plaintiff in that case conten'e' that in actions to co"pel ac3no0le'1"ent of a natu&al chil' a&isin1 eithe& un'e& pa&a1&aph ) o& pa&a1&aph 9 of a&ticle )A; of the Ci#il Co'e! e#i'ence of the &elationship an' e#i'ence ten'in1 to sho0 that 'efen'ant is in fact the fathe& of the chil' is co"petent an' a'"issible as th&o0in1 li1ht upon his subseEuent con'uct in the t&eat"ent of the chil'. But this Sup&e"e Cou&t! o#e&&ulin1 such contention an' &e#e&sin1 the 'ecision of the t&ial cou&t! sai'6 . . . It is #e&/ clea& that in e#e&/ case such e#i'ence 0oul' ha#e 1&eat 0ei1ht. E#i'ence ha#in1 been &ecei#e' in this case to sho0 that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact the fathe& of the chil'! the cou&t 0as easil/ le' to the 'ecision that the 'efen'ant ha' so t&eate' the chil' as to 1i#e the latte& the continuous possession of the status of a natu&al chil'. Its influence 0as un'oubte'l/ p&epon'e&atin1 upon this point! but the Euestion is! Can it un'e& the la0 ha#e such influenceF Does the la0 allo0 the 5u'1e! in his 'ecision on the Euestion of the e4istence of a 0&itin1 un'e& pa&a1&aph )! o& the possession of status un'e& pa&a1&aph 9! to be influence' b/ e#i'ence sho0in1 that the 'efen'ant in fact 0as the fathe& of the chil'F %et us suppose that the facts sho0in1 the possession of the status of a natu&al chil' a&e in the"sel#es insufficient to p&o#e such possession! but 0hen p&oof of the pa&enta1e is int&o'uce' fo& the pu&pose of e4plainin1 the e#i'ence in &e1a&' to the possession of the status of a natu&al chil'! the latte& e#i'ence beco"es sufficient fo& that pu&pose. In such case it is seen! of cou&se! that the 5u'1"ent a1ainst the 'efen'ant &ests! not upon the e#i'ence that the chil' possesse' the status of a natu&al chil'! but upon the e#i'ence that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact its fathe&! an' the effect of such a hol'in1 0oul' be to co"pel the 'efen'ant to &eco1ni2e the chil'! not because the chil' ha' possesse' continuousl/ the status of a natu&al chil'! but because the plaintiff ha' p&o#e' that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact its fathe&. This is a &esult 0hich the Ci#il Co'e 'oes not autho&i2e. If it ha' been the intention of the le1islato&s to ha#e allo0e' this 3in' of e#i'ence to tu&n the scale! the co'e "i1ht as 0ell ha#e p&o#i'e'! as 0as 'one in the case of the "othe&! that p&oof of this fact 0oul' co"pel a &eco1nition. In this pa&ticula& case e#i'ence 0as int&o'uce' to sho0 that the 'efen'ant ha' sent "one/ an' "e'icine to P&esentacion Infante! the "othe&. That e#i'ence! stan'in1 b/ itself! has no si1nificance. It acEui&es all its fo&ce b/ &eason of the e#i'ence p&e#iousl/ int&o'uce' to the effect that the 'efen'ant 0as the fathe& of P&esentacion.s chil'. GPa1es B:l! B:9H. %ee also Borres and Bar)a vs. Municipality of Panay G:9 Phil.! 7:AH! an' cases the&ein cite'.

It is a&1ue' in the b&ief fo& the appellee that the ca&nal &elations ha' afte& the co"plainant ha' &eache' the a1e of ei1hteen /ea&s constitute a continuation of the c&i"inal offense be1un befo&e. This #ie0 is untenable. The&e is no such thin1 as a continuin1 offense o& a continuation of the offense of se'uction. The loss of #i&1init/ 'u&in1 the "ino&it/ of the offen'e' pa&t/ Gi. e.! 0hile un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1eH) consu""ates the offense! an' the #i&1init/ of one cannot be lost t0ice. St&ictl/ spea3in1! the ca&nal &elations subseEuent to the fi&st coition a&e be/on' the pale of the la0 0hich penali2es se'uction. It is plain that cohabitation 0ith a 0o"an 'u&in1 he& "a5o&it/! 0hethe& fo& the fi&st o& a subseEuent ti"e! cannot an' 'oes not constitute an offense un'e& the la0 in Euestion.. ,ith the issue in #ie0 as thus cla&ifie'! to 0it6 0hethe& the accuse' ha' ca&nal 3no0le'1e of the co"plainant in an' bet0een Ma/ )8A8 an' Au1ust );! )8:@! 0e p&ocee' to e4a"ine the e#i'ence fo& the p&osecution on that point. The co"plainant Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla testifie' on 'i&ect e4a"ination in substance as follo0s6 On the ni1ht of Ma/ )=! )8A8! Docto& Bautista an' his 0ife left the house sa/in1 that the/ 0e&e 1oin1 to so"e place. A 0hile late& Docto& Bautista &etu&ne' an' loc3e' the 'oo&. The co"plainant 0as then ta3in1 ca&e of Docto& Bautista.s bab/. Docto& Bautista then an' the&e e"b&ace' an' 3isse' he& an' t&ie' to &aise he& '&ess an' la/ he& 'o0n on the be'. She tol' hi"6 CDon.t 'o that because /ou a&e a "a&&ie' "an!C to 0hich he &eplie'6 CDon.t tal3+ I 0ill ta3e ca&e of /ou because I a" not "a&&ie' to ?osefina.C *e 0ent on 0ith his a'#ances an' fo&ce' the co"plainant an' succee'e' in ha#in1 se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith he&! an' 0hen she be1an to shout he stuffe' he& "outh. CThe ni1ht afte& that he ha' anothe& se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith "e! an' afte& the lapse of one 0ee3 he succee'e' in ha#in1 se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith "e e#e&/ ni1ht.C Docto& Bautista.s 0ife! acco&'in1 to the co"plainant! C'oes not sta/ in the house the 0hole 'a/. She 1oes out afte& b&ea3fast an' co"es bac3 at ni1ht!C usuall/ at t0el#e o.cloc3 "i'ni1ht! because she usuall/ sta/s in the sto&e of he& f&ien' M&s. A#an2a'o. The co"plainant sai' she 1a#e bi&th on ?une =! )8:). (pon c&oss<e4a"ination she testifie' in pa&t as follo0s6 >. $ou sai' /ou& chil' 0as bo&n on ?une =! )8:). At /ou& conception of that chil' /ou 0e&e "o&e than )= /ea&sF A. >. A. >. A. >. A. Not /et. Do /ou &e"e"be& the 'ate of /ou& bi&thF $es! si&. ,hen 0e&e /ou bo&nF Au1ust )7! )899. ,hen 'i' /ou concei#e that chil'F In Octobe&! )8:@.

>. So f&o" Au1ust )7! )879! to Octobe& )8:@! b/ "athe"atical calculation! /ou 0e&e )= /ea&s ol'! an' 9 "onthsF A. No! because it see"s to "e that I concei#e' t0ice! at "/ fi&st conception I 0as 1i#en "e'icine b/ Docto& Bautista. >. A. >. A. I &efe& to /ou& chil'. $ou sai' /ou concei#e' of he& in Octobe& )8:@! is that &i1htF Befo&e I concei#e' a1ain I 0as 1i#en "e'icine. But f&o" Octobe& )8:@! that 0as the ti"e 0hen /ou concei#e' of /ou& p&esent chil'F $es! Si&.

>. So at the ti"e of /ou& conception of that chil' /ou 0e&e )= /ea&s an' 9 "onths because /ou sai' /ou 0e&e bo&n on Au1ust )7! )899F -

A.

Ma/be. 444 444 444

>. ,ill /ou state to the cou&t 0hat 'ate in Ma/! )8A8! 0hen Docto& Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&se fo& the fi&st ti"e 0ith /ouF A. I 'on.t &e"e"be& the e4act 'ate but I &e"e"be& the "onth an' /ea&. Di' /ou not state Ma/ )=! )8A8F -

CO(RT6 - >. A.

I 'i' not sa/ that. GPa1es =! 8! )@! t.s.n.H

She fu&the& testifie'6 CThe succee'in1 ni1ht I &esiste' but he tol' "e to 3eep "/ "outh shut because "/ pa&ents ha' a 'ebt to hi" an' tol' "e that if I 'i' not acce'e to his 'esi&e he 0oul' file a co"plaint a1ainst "/ fathe&! so that I acce'e' to his 'esi&e.C >. An' f&o" that 'ate afte& GuntilH /ou left the house of Docto& Bautista! al"ost e#e&/ ni1ht Docto& Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith /ouF A. >. A. $es. That is! co#e&in1 a pe&io' of one /ea& an' si4 "onths! al"ostF $es.

>. The fi&st ni1ht Docto& Bautista ha' se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith /ou! /ou sai' /ou 0e&e hol'in1 a chil' of Docto& Bautista! is that t&ueF A. >. A. >. A. $es. $ou 0e&e sittin1 o& stan'in1 at that ti"eF I 0as sittin1 'o0n. ,hat is the a1e of that chil' /ou 0e&e hol'in1F I 'on.t &e"e"be& if that chil' 0as one /ea& ol' o& less.

>. An' Docto& Bautista as soon as he app&oache' /ou! t&ie' to e"b&ace an' 3iss /ou an' &aise' /ou& '&essF A. >. $es. An' 0hat 'i' /ou 'oF -

A. I 0as t&/in1 to 'isentan1le "/self f&o" hi" because he 0as e"b&acin1 "e! but he 0oul' not allo0 "e an' fo&ce "e to lie in be'. >. ,ill /ou sho0 to the cou&t 1&aphicall/ ho0 Docto& Bautista e"b&ace' /ou 0hen he app&oache' that ni1ht of Ma/! )8A8F A. *e e"b&ace' "e li3e this G0itness e"b&aces he& "othe&! 3isses he& an' hu1s he&H.

>. As /ou t&ie' to sho0 1&aphicall/ to the cou&t the b&east of Docto& Bautista 0as touchin1 /ou& b&east at the ti"e he 0as 3issin1 /ouF A. $es.

>. $ou sai' /ou 0e&e hol'in1 a chil' of Docto& Bautista at the ti"e 0hen Docto& Bautista app&oache' /ou. *o0 0as it possible that it happene' in the 0a/ /ou 1&aphicall/ 'e"onst&ate'! an' 0hat happene' 0ith the chil'F -

A. I 0as not hol'in1 the chil' then. I 0as onl/ hol'in1 a "il3 bottle! an' 0hen Docto& Bautista "a'e his a'#ances I '&oppe' the bottle. GPa1es )9! )A! t. s. n.H. She also &e#eale' fo& the fi&st ti"e on c&oss<e4a"ination that Docto& Bautista p&o"ise' to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ an' to "a&&/ he&. She sai' she 'i' not "ention the p&o"ise to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ 0hen she testifie' befo&e the "unicipal 5u'1e of the Cit/ of San Pablo because he& atto&ne/! M&. o"e2! ha' tol' he& Cnot to put that in the &eco&'s because it has nothin1 to 'o 0ith the case an' onl/ to put the fact that he 0oul' "a&&/ "e.C She sai' that the p&o"ise to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ 0as "a'e b/ Docto& Bautista Cthe fi&st ti"e he "a'e his a'#ances.C She fu&the& sai'6 CI acce'e' to his 'esi&es because of his t&eats that he 0oul' file a co"plaint a1ainst "/ pa&ents. I pit/ "/ pa&ents.C But! she sai'! she 'i' not as3 he& pa&ents about thei& suppose' in'ebte'ness until she left the se&#ice of Docto& Bautista. On &e'i&ect e4a"ination the co"plainant testifie' fo& the fi&st ti"e that in ?ul/ )8A8 the accuse' 1a#e he& t0o 3in's of capsules! one &e' an' the othe& 0hite! inst&uctin1 he& to ta3e t0o 0hite capsules befo&e e#e&/ "eal an' t0o &e' capsules afte& "eals. On &ec&oss<e4a"ination she testifie' that befo&e filin1 the co"plaint she info&"e' he& la0/e&s Gshe 0as assiste' b/ t0o atto&ne/s as p&i#ate p&osecuto&sH about the "e'icine that she ha' been ta3in1! but that the/ tol' he& Cnot to put that fact in 0&itin1!C an' that that 0as the &eason 0h/ it 'i' not appea& in he& testi"on/ befo&e the "unicipal 5u'1e. The onl/ othe& 0itness calle' b/ the p&osecution to co&&obo&ate the alle1e' se4ual inte&cou&se bet0een the accuse' an' the co"plainant in the "onth of Ma/ )8A8 0as one Ma&ia Ve&i'iano! a A;</ea&<ol' 0o"an! 0ho testifie' that she ente&e' the se&#ice of the accuse' as a coo3 on *cto+er ,-, ,./.+ that 0hile she 0as in the se&#ice of Docto& Bautista as a coo3! one 'a/ 'u&in1 the "onth of May ,./.! about ; o.cloc3 in the afte&noon! she 0ent upstai&s to the &oo" G"eanin1 the be'&oo"H to 1et so"e &ice! an' she sa0 Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla bein1 e"b&ace' b/ Docto& Bautista! an' 0hen Docto& Bautista sa0 he& he sent he& a0a/+ that she 'i' not see othe& pe&sons in that &oo" besi'es Docto& Bautista! Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla! an' a chil' of Docto& Bautista. Fu&the& testif/in1 on 'i&ect e4a"ination this 0itness s0o&e6 >. A. >. A. >. A. >. A. >. A. ,hen /ou sa0 the accuse' an' the offen'e' pa&t/ insi'e the &oo"! ho0 fa& 0e&e /ou f&o" the"F I 0as about one b&a2a a0a/ f&o" the"+ the/ 0e&e nea& the 'oo&. That &oo" is a sleepin1 &oo"! o& a 'inin1 &oo"F Sleepin1 &oo" of Docto& Bautista. ,as the 'oo& of the &oo" open o& close' 0hen /ou sa0 the t0oF It 0as close'. *o0 coul' /ou see the" if the 'oo& of the &oo" 0as close'F I opene' the 'oo& because I 0as 1oin1 to 1et so"e &ice. ,as the &ice insi'e that &oo"F It 0as in that &oo". GPa1es 9B! 9=! t.s.n.H

Acco&'in1 to this 0itness! afte& the la0 of one 0ee3! at noonti"e an' in the sa"e &oo"! she a1ain sa0 the accuse' e"b&acin1 the co"plainant! 0ho 0as then hol'in1 a chil'+ that 0hen she sa0 the" she a1ain 0ent 'o0n+ an' that she 0ent up that &oo" that secon' ti"e to 1et the coffee pot. On c&oss<e4a"ination she &eite&ate' that she ente&e' the se&#ice of Docto& Bautista as a coo3 on Octobe& )9! )8A8! 0he&eupon she 0as inte&&o1ate' b/ the cou&t as follo0s6 >. A. >. An' 0hen 'i' /ou see this act /ou a&e 'esc&ibin1 no0! 0hat "onth an' /ea&F ,hen I 0as al&ea'/ in the se&#ice of Docto& Bautista! in the "onth of Ma/. Do /ou "ean to sa/ Ma/! )8A8F -

A. >. A. >. A.

I 'i' not sta/ lon1 in the se&#ice afte& I sa0 those inci'ents. But Ma/ of 0hat /ea&F In the "onth of Ma/ that sa"e /ea&. )8A8F $es Si&. GPa1e A9! t. s. n.H.

(pon anal/2in1 the testi"on/ of the co"plainant an' he& 0itness Ma&ia Ve&i'iano! one is st&uc3 b/ the appa&ent lac3 of can'o& of the fo&"e& an' the "anifest inhe&ent inc&e'ibilit/ of the testi"on/ of the latte&. If 0e a&e to belie#e the fi&st pa&t of the testi"on/ of the co"plainant! she 0as &ape' b/ the accuse' on the ni1ht of Ma/ )=! )8A8. But in anothe& pa&t of he& testi"on/ she 1a#e the cou&t to un'e&stan' that she acce'e' to the a'#ances of the accuse' because the latte& p&o"ise' to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ an' to "a&&/ he&. %ate& on she p&acticall/ nullifie' those alle1e' p&o"ises b/ sa/in16 CI acce'e' to all his 'esi&es because of his th&eats that he 0oul' file a co"plaint a1ainst "/ pa&ents. I pit/ "/ pa&ents.C Asi'e f&o" that! it 0ill be &ecalle' that at the be1innin1 of he& testi"on/ on 'i&ect e4a"ination she cate1o&icall/ state' that the fi&st se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith he& occu&&e' on the ni1ht of Ma/ )=! )8A8+ but on c&oss<e4a"ination she sai' she 'i' not &e"e"be& the e4act 'ate but onl/ the "onth an' /ea&! an' 0hen she 0as as3e' b/ the cou&t if she ha' not sai' May ,0, ,./.! she &eplie' that she 'i' not sa/ that. A1ain! at fi&st she sai' that she 0as hol'in1 the bab/ 0hen the accuse' e"b&ace' an' 3isse' he&+ but afte& she ha' been "a'e to 'e"onst&ate ho0 the accuse' e"b&ace' an' 3isse' he&! 0hen she 0as "a'e to e4plain ho0 that coul' ha#e been 'one 0hile she 0as hol'in1 the bab/! she asse&te' that she 0as not hol'in1 the bab/ then but onl/ a "il3 bottle! 0hich she sai' she '&oppe' 0hen the accuse' "a'e his a'#ances. Mo&eo#e&! it appea&s f&o" he& testi"on/ that! at least! 0hen she testifie' befo&e the "unicipal 5u'1e 'u&in1 the p&eli"ina&/ in#esti1ation! she 'elibe&atel/ 0ithhel' ce&tain #ital alle1e' facts! such as the p&o"ise to 1i#e he& P)!@@@ an' the use of abo&ti#e "e'icines! in obe'ience to the inst&uctions of he& atto&ne/! M&. o"e2. Nee'less to sa/! the testi"on/ of an/ 0itness 0ho "a/ ha#e been p&e#iousl/ inst&ucte' as to 0hat to sa/ an' 0hat not to sa/ befo&e the cou&t an' 0ho a'"its ha#in1 obe/e' such inst&uction! can not be &elie' upon+ an' 0hen in othe& &espects the testi"on/ of such 0itness appea&s e4a11e&ate'! self<cont&a'icto&/! e#asi#e! an' othe&0ise 'enotes lac3 of since&it/ an' can'o&! it is ce&tainl/ not safe fo& the cou&t to accept it fo& an/ pu&pose! an' "uch less as a basis fo& con#iction. ,e fin' "anifest e4a11e&ation in the testi"on/ of the e4plainin1 0itness that f&o" Ma/ )=! )8A8! to ?anua&/ )B! )8:)! a pe&io' of one /ea& an' ei1ht "onths! the accuse' cohabite' 0ith he& e#e&/ ni1ht! o& al"ost e#e&/ ni1ht! in the con5u1al be'+ an' to "a3e the cou&t belie#e such e4a11e&ation she s0o&e that the 0ife of the accuse' 0as al"ost al0a/s absent f&o" ho"e f&o" "o&nin1 to "i'ni1ht because she sta/e' in the sto&e of a f&ien' of he&s 'u&in1 that ti"e - anothe& palpable e4a11e&ation. The e#asi#eness of he& testi"on/ on c&oss< e4a"ination can be &ea'il/ seen f&o" 0hat has been Euote' abo#e. Fo& instance! afte& 'en/in1 that she 0as "o&e than ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e 0hen she concei#e' he& chil'! 0ho 0as bo&n on ?une =! )8:)! an' afte& a'"ittin1 that she 0as bo&n on Au1ust )7! )899! an' that she concei#e' he& chil' in Octobe& )8:@! she 0as as3e' 0hethe& it 0as not t&ue that in Octobe& )8:@ she 0as ei1hteen /ea&s an' t0o "onths ol'! to 0hich she &eplie'6 CNo! because it see"s to "e that I concei#e' t0ice! at "/ fi&st conception I 0as 1i#en "e'icine b/ Docto& Bautista.C It is t&anspa&ent f&o" he& testi"on/ that she 0as conscious of the i"po&tance of establishin1 the fact that she 0as un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e 0hen the se'uction too3 place. Mo&e inc&e'ible still! to ou& "in'! is the testi"on/ of Ma&ia Ve&i'iano. She &epeate'l/ an' cate1o&icall/ state' that she ente&e' the se&#ice of the accuse' as a coo3 on Octobe& )9! )8A8! an' /et she p&eten'e' to ha#e seen the accuse' e"b&acin1 the co"plainant in his be'&oo" on the thi&' floo& of the house at fi#e o.cloc3 one afte&noon in Ma/ )8A8+ an' that one 0ee3 the&eafte&! at noonti"e an' on the sa"e &oo"! she a1ain sa0 the accuse' &epeatin1 the sa"e act. The appa&ent pu&pose of he& testi"on/ 0as to co&&obo&ate that of the co"plainin1 0itness to the effect that she 0as se'uce' in Ma/ )8A8. But it 0ill be &ecalle' that acco&'in1 to the co"plainant the fi&st cohabitation 0ith he& too3 on the ni#1t of Ma/ )=! )8A8! afte& the accuse' 1ad locked t1e door+ that the secon' cohabitation too3 place the follo0in1 ni1ht! Can' afte& the lapse of one 0ee3 he succee'e' in ha#in1 se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith "e e#e&/ ni1ht.C The co"plainant ne#e& "entione' an/ atte"pt on the pa&t of the accuse' to ha#e se4ual inte&cou&se 0ith he& at fi#e o.cloc3 in the afte&noon o& at t0el#e o.cloc3 noon o& at an/ othe& ti"e of the 'a/. If 0e 0e&e to belie#e' the 0itness Ma&ia Ve&i'iano as 0ell as the co"plainant! it 0oul' &esult that the accuse' 0as not satisfie' 0ith ha#in1 ca&nal 3no0le'1e of his "ai'se&#ant e#e&/ ni1ht but ha' to in'ul1e in it at othe& ti"es of the 'a/! e#en 'u&in1 the pe&io' of "enst&uation. The testi"on/ of this 0itness st&i3es us as inhe&entl/ inc&e'ible. Asi'e f&o" the fact that acco&'in1 to he& she 0as not /et in the se&#ice of the accuse' in Ma/ )8A8! she ha#in1 ente&e' it o& Octobe& )9! )8A8! an' the&efo&e she ha' no oppo&tunit/ to int&u'e into the p&i#ac/ of the accuse' as clai"e' b/ he&! b/ openin1 0ithout fi&st 3noc3in1 at

the close' 'oo& of his be'&oo"! the pu&pose clai"e' b/ he& in 1oin1 to that &oo" on the t0o occasions - to 1et &ice on the fi&st! an' to 1et the coffee pot on the secon' - is "anifestl/ false. The be'&oo" 0as on the thi&' floo& of the house 0hile the li#in1 &oo"! the 'inin1 &oo"! an' the 3itchen 0e&e on the secon' floo&. The be'&oo" is not the place 0he&e the &ice an' the coffee pot a&e usuall/ 3ept. In this connection the 0ife of the accuse' testifie' that Ma&ia Ve&i'iano ente&e' he& se&#ice as a laun'&ess in Octobe& )8A8 an' sta/e' in the se&#ice fo& onl/ about t0o 0ee3s+ that sai' 0o"an 0as ne#e& thei& coo3 an' ne#e& coo3e' &ice+ that in )8A8 she GM&s. BautistaH 3ept he& &ice on the secon' floo&! Cin the 'inin1 &oo"! b/ the stai&s lea'in1 to the thi&' floo&C+ an' that she ne#e& 3ept &ice in the be'&oo". ,e "ust the&efo&e &e5ect the testi"on/ of the 0itness Ma&ia Ve&i'iano as co"pletel/ inc&e'ible. *ence the&e &e"ains onl/ the unco&&obo&ate' testi"on/ of the co"plainin1 0itness Conco&'ia Ba&Euilla as to he& alle1e' se'uction b/ the accuse' in Ma/ )8A8. F&o" an anal/sis of he& testi"on/ as he&einbefo&e "a'e! 0e cannot but ente&tain se&ious 'oubts as to its #e&acit/. In the case of People vs. $austo G;) Phil.! =;9! =;7H! this cou&t sai'6 On "o&e than one occasion in the past this cou&t has ha' occasion to point out that! in c&i"es a1ainst chastit/! the testi"on/ of the in5u&e' 0o"an shoul' not be &ecei#e' 0ith p&ecipitate c&e'ulit/+ an' 0hen the con#iction 'epen's at an/ #ital point upon he& unco&&obo&ate' testi"on/! it shoul' not be accepte' unless he& since&it/ an' can'o& a&e f&ee f&o" suspicion. ,e &eaffi&" that p&onounce"ent as soun' an' in consonance 0ith the 0is'o" of the a1es an' the e4pe&ience of "an3in' on the sub5ect. In the Sc&iptu&es it is 0&it6 CThe&e be th&ee thin1s 0hich a&e too 0on'e&ful fo& "e! /ea! fou& 0hich I 3no0 not6 The 0a/ of an ea1le in the ai&+ the 0a/ of a se&pent upon a &oc3+ the 0a/ of a ship in the "i'st of the sea+ an' the 0a/ of a "an 0ith a "ai'. Such is the 0a/ of an a'ulte&ous 0o"an+ she eateth! an' 0ipeth he& "outh! an' saith! I ha#e 'one no 0ic3e'ness.C GP&o#e&bs! A@6)=<9@.H In the p&esent case the t&ial cou&t 0as un'ul/ influence' in its app&eciation of the testi"on/ of the co"plainant as to he& alle1e' se'uction b/ the accuse' in Ma/ )8A8 b/ the ph/sical fact that on ?une =! )8:)! she 1a#e bi&th to a chil' 0hose pate&nit/ she att&ibute' to the accuse'. The t&ial cou&t thus &easone' out6 Natu&e al0a/s asse&ts itself. The co"plainant 0oul' not att&ibute the pate&nit/ of he& chil' to the accuse' if he 0e&e not the &eal fathe&. An' if he 0as &eall/ the fathe&! he "ust be the one 0ho ha' se'uce' the "othe& in Ma/ )8A8 as clai"e' b/ he&. The faultiness of such &easonin1 is too appa&ent fo& co""ent. In the case of (nfante vs. $i#ueras GsupraH! this cou&t note' that the e#i'ence ten'in1 to sho0 that the 'efen'ant 0as in fact the fathe& of the chil' easil/ le' the t&ial cou&t to the 'ecision that the 'efen'ant ha' so t&eate' the chil' as to 1i#e the latte& the continuous possession of the status of a natu&al chil'. That 0as so because the&e 0as a necessa&/ connection bet0een the fact of pate&nit/ an' the subseEuent con'uct of the fathe& to0a&'s the chil'! since the fo&"e& e4plaine' the latte&. Ne#e&theless! since the la0 'i' not pe&"it the in#esti1ation of pate&nit/! this cou&t 'isca&'e' that fact an' hel' that it 0as e&&o& on the pa&t of the t&ial cou&t to be influence' the&eb/. In the p&esent case the&e is no necessa&/ connection bet0een the alle1e' pate&nit/ of the chil' concei#e' in Octobe& )8:@ an' the alle1e' cohabitation in Ma/ )8A8. E#en assu"in1 fo& the sa3e of a&1u"ents that the accuse' cohabite' 0ith the co"plainant in Octobe& )8:@! as a &esult of 0hich sai' chil' 0as bo&n! it 0oul' not necessa&il/ follo0 that the&e 0as cohabitation bet0een its pa&ents in Ma/ )8A8 o& at an/ othe& ti"e p&io& to Au1ust )7! )8:@! 0hen the co"plainant 0as un'e& ei1hteen /ea&s of a1e. An'! a1ain assu"in1 that the accuse' is the fathe& of sai' chil'! it 0oul' not be st&an1e if the co"plainant shoul' p&eten' to e4ten' bac30a&' he& &elations 0ith hi" in o&'e& to b&in1 the f&uit of he& sin 0ithin the pale of the la0 not onl/ to secu&e suppo&t fo& he& chil' f&o" the accuse' but also to obtain in'e"nit/ f&o" hi". In he& situation the en' 0oul' see" to 5ustif/ the "eans. The ulti"ate effect of the 'ecision of the t&ial cou&t in this case! 0he&ein it un'ul/ allo0e' itself to be influence' b/ the testi"on/ of the co"plainant that the accuse' is the fathe& of he& chil'! is to con#ict the accuse' upon a fo&bi''en an' inco"petent p&oof - that of the pate&nit/ of an ille1iti"ate chil' concei#e' an' be1otten afte& the "othe& 0ho ac3no0le'1es it ha' &eache' the a1e of ei1hteen /ea&s! 0hen cohabitation 0ith he& 0as not an offense un'e& the c&i"inal la0 in#o3e' in he& behalf. This! 0e hol'! is a &e#e&sible e&&o&. Since the e#i'ence fo& the p&osecution has not p&o#e' the 1uilt of the accuse' be/on' &easonable 'oubt! 0e 'o not 'ee" it necessa&/ to consi'e& the e#i'ence fo& the 'efense to the effect that th&ee 'iffe&ent /oun1 "en othe& than the accuse' cou&te' o& ha' a"o&ous &elations 0ith the co"plainant! an' that one of the" is the fathe& of he& chil'. The 5u'1"ent is &e#e&se' an' the appellant is acEuitte'! 0ith costs de oficio. De !oya, Perfecto, 2ilado, and Ben#)on, !!., concu&.

RULE 12.08 NO PNB vs Tieng Piao

CANON 13

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-22)36 A!*!+, 31, 196-

%OM$NGO .. AUSTR$A, petitione&! #s. #ON. ANTON$O C. MASA/UEL, 01 h0+ ca2ac0," a+ ,he Pre+0301* 4!3*e o5 &ra1ch $$ o5 ,he Co!r, o5 F0r+, $1+,a1ce o5 Pa1*a+01a1, &espon'ent. Primicias, Del astillo and Macarae# for petitioner. Antonio . Masa3uel for respondent. 'AL%$.AR, J.: This is a petition fo& a 0&it of certiorari to annul o& set asi'e the o&'e& of &espon'ent ?u'1e Antonio MasaEuel! 'ate' Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:! in Ci#il Case No. )A9;= of the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of Pan1asinan! 'ecla&in1 petitione& Do"in1o V. Aust&ia 1uilt/ of conte"pt of cou&t an' i"posin1 upon hi" a fine of P;@.@@. The facts that 1a#e &ise to the inci'ent in Euestion a&e not 'ispute'. Petitione& 0as one of the plaintiffs in the abo#e<"entione' Ci#il Case No. )A9;=) a1ainst Pe'&o B&a#o fo& the &eco#e&/ of th&ee pa&cels of lan' - one pa&cel bein1 locate' at Ba/a"ban1 an' t0o pa&cels in San Ca&los! in the p&o#ince of Pan1asinan. On Ap&il )8! )87A! afte& t&ial! &espon'ent ?u'1e &en'e&e' a 'ecision 'ecla&in1 the plaintiffs the o0ne&s of the th&ee pa&cels of lan' in Euestion an' o&'e&in1 the 'efen'ant to #acate the lan's an' pa/ the plaintiffs 'a"a1es onl/ 0ith &espect to the lan' locate' at Ba/a"ban1. The plaintiffs file' a "otion fo& the i""e'iate e4ecution of the 5u'1"ent 0hich "otion 0as 1&ante' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e on Ma/ A)! )87A - an'! upon the plaintiffs. ha#in1 poste' a su&et/ bon' in the su" of P9!@@@.@@! the she&iff place' the" in possession of the lan's locate' at San Ca&los. On Ma/ 9A! )87A! Att/. Ma&iano C. Sicat! a fo&"e& assistant o& associate of &espon'ent ?u'1e 0hen the latte& 0as still in the p&actice of la0 befo&e his appoint"ent to the bench! ente&e' his appea&ance as the ne0 counsel fo& 'efen'ant Pe'&o B&a#o! #ice Atto&ne/ Antonio Resn1it. On ?une ):! )87A! the 'efen'ant! th&ou1h Att/. Sicat! file' a supe&se'eas bon' to sta/ the e4ecution of the 5u'1"ent! an' on ?une 9@! )87A &espon'ent ?u'1e 1&ante' the sta/ of e4ecution! o#e& the ob5ection of plaintiffs! an' o&'e&e' the she&iff to &esto&e the possession of the lan's in San Ca&los to the 'efen'ant. The petitione& li3e0ise ha' as3e' fo& the appoint"ent of a &ecei#e& o#e& the pa&cel of lan' locate' at Ba/a"ban1! 0hich p&a/e& 0as 1&ante' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e on ?ul/ =! )87A+ but upon the filin1 of a bon' b/ the 'efen'ant fo& the non<appoint"ent of a &ecei#e&! the o&'e& &ecei#e&ship 0as set asi'e. On Au1ust 9:! )87A! pen'in1 the app&o#al of the 'efen'ant.s a"en'e' &eco&' on appeal! Att/. Sicat file' a "otion fo& ne0 t&ial an' to set asi'e the 5u'1"ent an'! o#e& the #i1o&ous ob5ection of plaintiffs! the &espon'ent ?u'1e 1&ante' the sai' "otion on No#e"be& B! )87A. The hea&in1 on the &et&ial 0as finall/ set fo& Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:. Befo&e the openin1 of the cou&t.s session in the "o&nin1 of Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:! Att/. Daniel Maca&ae1! counsel fo& petitione& an' his co<plaintiffs! sa0 &espon'ent ?u'1e in his cha"be& an' #e&ball/ t&ans"itte' to hi" the &eEuest of petitione& that he Gthe ?u'1eH inhibit hi"self f&o" fu&the& hea&in1 the case upon the 1&oun' that the ne0 counsel fo& the 'efen'ant! Att/. Ma&iano C. Si3at! 0as his fo&"e& associate. The &espon'ent ?u'1e! ho0e#e&! &e5ecte' the &eEuest because! acco&'in1 to hi"! the &eason fo& the &eEuest of his inhibition is not one of the 1&oun's fo& 'isEualification of a 5u'1e p&o#i'e' fo& in the Rules of Cou&t. The&eafte&! 0hen the case 0as

calle' fo& hea&in1 in open cou&t! the follo0in1 t&anspi&e'! as sho0n b/ the t&ansc&ipt of the steno1&aphic notes ta3en 'u&in1 sai' hea&in169 APPEARANCE6 ATT$. DANIE% C. MACARAE 6 appea&e' in behalf of plaintiffs. GAfte& the case 0as calle'H CO(RT6 $ou& client is he&eF ATT$. MACARAE 6 $es! $ou& *ono&. CO(RT6 ,he&e is heF ATT$. MACARAE 6 *e is he&e! $ou& *ono&. CO(RT6 ,hat is /ou& na"eF P%AINTIFF6 Do"in1o Aust&ia! si&. CO(RT6 $ou a&e one of the plaintiffs in this caseF DOMIN O A(STRIA6 $es! si&. CO(RT6 Att/. Maca&ae1 app&oache' "e in cha"be&s &eEuestin1 "e to 'isEualif/ "/self in hea&in1 this case. Di' /ou autho&i2e Att/. Maca&ae1 to app&oach "e #e&ball/ to 'isEualif/ "/self f&o" hea&in1 this case because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ fo&"e& assistantF DOMIN O A(STRIA6 $es! si&. CO(RT6 Is that /ou& &eason 0h/ /ou &eEueste' Att/. Maca&ae1 to app&oach "e! &eEuestin1 "e to 'isEualif/ "/self si"pl/ because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ assistantF DOMIN O A(STRIA6 $es! si&. CO(RT6

All &i1ht. Do /ou 'oubt the inte1&it/ of the p&esi'in1 ?u'1e to 'eci'e this case fai&l/ an' i"pa&tiall/ because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ fo&"e& assistantF Do /ou 'oubtF ?ust ans0e& the EuestionF DOMIN O A(STRIA6 $es! si&. CO(RT6 The Cou&t he&eb/ fin's /ou 1uilt/ of conte"pt of Cou&t an' /ou a&e he&eb/ o&'e&e' to pa/ a fine of P;@.@@. ATT$. MACARAE 6 ,ith 'ue in'ul1ence of this *ono&able Cou&t - I ha#e lea&ne'! afte& I ha#e confe&&e' 0ith /ou in cha"be&s! anothe& 1&oun' of the plaintiffs fo& thei& &eEuestin1 "e to as3 fo& the 'isEualification of $ou& *ono& in this case! an' this 1&oun' consists of the &a"pant &u"o& co"in1 f&o" the 'efen'ant Pe'&o B&a#o hi"self that he is boastin1 in San Ca&los that because he has a ne0 la0/e&! that su&el/ he is 1oin1 to 0in this case. CO(RT6 ,h/ 'i' /ou not 0ait until the case is finall/ 'eci'e' an' fin' out if that is t&ue o& notF ATT$. MACARAE 6 An' "a/be! that is 0h/ the plaintiffs &eEueste' "e to app&oach $ou& *ono& because of that &a"pant &u"o& that Pe'&o B&a#o is sp&ea'in1. CO(RT6 $ou "ean to sa/ because of that &u"o&! /ou a&e 1oin1 to 'oubt "/ inte1&it/F ATT$. MACARAE 6 As fo& "e! I ente&tain no 'oubt! $ou& *ono&. CO(RT6 $ou& client e4p&esse' openl/ in Cou&t his 'oubts on the inte1&it/ of the Cou&t si"pl/ base' on &u"o&s an' that is a 1&oun' fo& conte"pt of cou&t! if onl/ to "aintain the faith of the people in the cou&ts. ATT$. MACARAE 6 Ta3in1 into consi'e&ation that these plaintiffs a&e la/"en an' 0e cannot e4pect f&o" the" the thin3in1 of a la0/e&! I a" "ost &espectfull/ p&a/in1 that the O&'e& of this Cou&t be &econsi'e&e'. CO(RT6 Denie'. $ou& client shoul' pa/ a fine of P;@.@@. ,e 0ill hea& this case this afte&noon. ATT$. MACARAE 6 $es! $ou& *ono&. The &espon'ent ?u'1e fo&th0ith 'ictate' the follo0in1 o&'e&6A Befo&e this Cou&t opene' its sessions this "o&nin1! Att/. Daniel C. Maca&ae1! counsel fo& the plaintiffs! app&oache' the p&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t in his cha"be&s an' "anifeste' the 'esi&e of his clients fo& the ?u'1e to 'isEualif/ hi"self f&o" t&/in1 the abo#e<entitle' case fo& the &eason that counsel fo& the 'efen'ant! Att/. Ma&ciano C. Sicat 0as fo&"e&l/ an associate of the ?u'1e of this Cou&t 0hile he 0as still en1a1e' in the p&actice of la0. To this "anifestation of Att/. Maca&ae1! the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e

info&"e' the latte& that such fact alone 'oes not in itself constitute a le1al 1&oun' to 'isEualif/ the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t! f&o" t&/in1 this case. ,hen the abo#e<entitle' case 0as calle' fo& hea&in1! the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e calle' on one of the plaintiffs 0ho 0as p&esent! na"el/! Do"in1o Aust&ia! an' inEui&e' f&o" the latte& if it 0as t&ue that he as3e' his la0/e& Att/. Maca&ae1 to app&oach the ?u'1e in cha"be&s an' to as3 hi" to 'isEualif/ hi"self f&o" t&/in1 this case because 'efen'ant.s la0/e&! Att/. Sicat 0as fo&"e&l/ associate' 0ith the sai' ?u'1e. To this Eue&/ Do"in1o Aust&ia ans0e&e' in the affi&"ati#e. ,hen he 0as also as3e' as to 0hethe& the sai' Do"in1o Aust&ia has lost faith in the sense of fai&ness an' 5ustice of the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t si"pl/ because of his fo&"e& association 0ith the 'efen'ant.s la0/e&! sai' Do"in1o Aust&ia li3e0ise ans0e&e' in the affi&"ati#e. The Cou&t consi'e&s the actuation of the plaintiff Do"in1o Aust&ia! in the p&e"ises! as offensi#e! insultin1 an' a &eflection on the inte1&it/ an' honest/ of the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t an' sho0s his lac3 of &espect to the Cou&t. The sai' Do"in1o Aust&ia is not 5ustifie' an' has no &eason to ente&tain 'oubts in the fai&ness an' inte1&it/ of the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t! si"pl/ because of the latte&.s fo&"e& association 0ith 'efen'ant.s counsel. Fo& this &eason an' in o&'e& to "aintain the people.s faith an' &espect in thei& cou&ts - the last bul0a&3 in ou& 'e"oc&atic institutions - the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e 'ecla&e' sai' plaintiff Do"in1o Aust&ia in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t an' he 0as o&'e&e' to pa/ a fine of P;@.@@. The Cou&t foun' f&o" the "anifestation of plaintiffs. counsel Att/. Maca&ae1 that the basis of the state"ent! of Do"in1o Aust&ia that he has lost his faith in the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t is the &u"o&s bein1 ci&culate' b/ the 'efen'ant Pe'&o B&a#o that he 0ill su&el/ 0in in the p&esent case because of his ne0 la0/e&! Att/. Ma&ciano C. Sicat. The Cou&t belie#es that &u"o&s of the so&t 'o not se&#e as a sufficient basis o& 5ustification fo& the plaintiff Do"in1o Aust&ia to insinuate bias an' pa&tialit/! on the pa&t of the Cou&t an' to e4p&ess openl/ his loss of faith an' confi'ence in the inte1&it/! fai&ness an' capabilit/ of the P&esi'in1 ?u'1e of this Cou&t to pe&fo&" his s0o&n 'ut/ of uphol'in1 an' a'"iniste&in1 5ustice! 0ithout fea& o& fa#o&! an' b/ &eason of 0hich this Cou&t 'enie' the #e&bal "otion to &econsi'e& file' b/ counsel fo& the plaintiff Do"in1o Aust&ia! fin'in1 hi" 1uilt/ of conte"pt of cou&t an' o&'e&in1 hi" to pa/ a fine of P;@.@@. SO ORDERED. i#en in open Cou&t this )@th 'a/ of Feb&ua&/! )87:! at %in1a/en! Pan1asinan. Petitione& Do"in1o Aust&ia! acco&'in1l/! pai' the fine of P;@.@@ un'e& p&otest. *a#in1 been punishe' su""a&il/ fo& 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t! an' the &e"e'/ of appeal not bein1 a#ailable to hi"! petitione& file' the instant petition fo& certiorari befo&e this Cou&t. It is the position of the petitione& that un'e& the facts an' ci&cu"stances atten'ant to the hea&in1 of the Ci#il Case No. )A9;@ on Feb&ua&/ )@! )@7A! he ha' not co""itte' an act of conte"pt a1ainst the cou&t an' the &espon'ent ?u'1e ha' acte' in e4cess of his 5u&is'iction 0ith 1&a#e abuse of 'isc&etion 0hen he 'ecla&e' petitione& in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t an' i"pose' on hi" the fine of P;@.@@ as a penalt/. Afte& a ca&eful stu'/ of the &eco&'! ,e fin' "e&it in this petition. The &espon'ent ?u'1e 'ecla&e' the petitione& in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t. Ou& tas3! the&efo&e! is to 'ete&"ine 0hethe& o& not the petitione& 0as 1uilt/ of "isbeha#io& in the p&esence of o& so nea& a cou&t o& 5u'1e! as to obst&uct o& inte&&upt the p&ocee'in1s befo&e the sa"e! o& ha' co""itte' an act of 'is&espect to0a&' the cou&t o& 5u'1e.: The &espon'ent ?u'1e consi'e&e' the actuation of the petitione&! in the p&e"ises! as offensi#e! insultin1! an' a &eflection on his inte1&it/ an' honest/ an' a sho0in1 of lac3 of &espect to the cou&t. The &espon'ent ?u'1e consi'e&e' that the petitione& 0as not 5ustifie' an' ha' no &eason to ente&tain 'oubts in his fai&ness an' inte1&it/ si"pl/ because the 'efen'ant.s counsel 0as his fo&"e& associate.,45p16,.78t ,e 'o not a1&ee 0ith the &espon'ent ?u'1e. It is ou& consi'e&e' #ie0 that 0hen the petitione& &eEueste' &espon'ent ?u'1e to inhibit hi"self f&o" fu&the& t&/in1 the case upon the 1&oun' that the counsel fo& the opposite pa&t/ 0as the fo&"e& associate of the &espon'ent ?u'1e! petitione& 'i' so because he 0as i"pelle' b/ a 5ustifiable app&ehension 0hich can occu& in the "in' of a liti1ant 0ho sees 0hat see"s to be an a'#anta1e on

the pa&t of his a'#e&sa&/+ an' that the petitione& "a'e his &eEuest in a "anne& that 0as not 'is&espectful! "uch less insultin1 o& offensi#e to the &espon'ent ?u'1e o& to the cou&t. ,e a&e in acco&' 0ith the state"ent of &espon'ent ?u'1e in his "e"o&an'u" that the ci&cu"stance in#o3e' b/ petitione& in as3in1 hi" to inhibit hi"self f&o" fu&the& t&/in1 the case - that Att/. Sicat 0as his fo&"e& associate in his p&actice of la0 - is not one of the 1&oun's enu"e&ate' in the fi&st pa&a1&aph of Section )! Rule )AB of the ne0 Rules of Cou&t fo& 'isEualif/in1 a 5u'1e. ,hile it is t&ue that &espon'ent ?u'1e "a/ not be co"pelle' to 'isEualif/ hi"self! the fact that Att/. Sicat! a'"itte'l/ his fo&"e& associate! 0as counsel fo& a pa&t/ in the case bein1 t&ie' b/ hi"! "a/ constitute a just or valid reason fo& hi" to #olunta&il/ inhibit hi"self f&o" hea&in1 the case on a &et&ial! if he so 'eci'es! pu&suant to the p&o#ision of the secon' pa&a1&aph of Section ) of the sai' Rule )AB.; The app&ehension of petitione& &e1a&'in1 the p&obable bias of &espon'ent ?u'1e 'oes not appea& to be 1&oun'less o& enti&el/ 'e#oi' of &eason. The &espon'ent ?u'1e ha' 'eci'e' the case in fa#o& of petitione& an' his co<plaintiffs! an' that upon plaintiffs. ti"el/ "otion an' filin1 of bon' the/ 0e&e al&ea'/ place' in possession of the lan's in Euestion pen'in1 appeal. It 0as 0hen Att/. Sicat too3 o#e& as ne0 counsel fo& 'efen'ant that the latte& 0as 1i#en bac3 the p&ope&ties! upon a "otion to sta/ the e4ecution of the 5u'1"ent 0hich 0as file' b/ sai' counsel an' 0as 1&ante' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e o#e& the opposition of petitione&.s counsel. A1ain! 0hen the sa"e counsel fo& 'efen'ant file' a "otion fo& a ne0 t&ial! sai' "otion 0as 1&ante' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e in spite of the #i1o&ous ob5ection of counsel fo& the petitione& an' his co<plaintiffs. An' then the petitione& beca"e a0a&e of the fact that his a'#e&sa&/! the 'efen'ant Pe'&o B&a#o! ha' been boastin1 in San Ca&los that he 0as su&e to 0in his case because of his ne0 la0/e&. ,e belie#e that the petitione& - the la/"an that he is - 'i' not ta3e a belli1e&ent o& a&&o1ant attitu'e to0a&' &espon'ent ?u'1e. ,hat he 'i' 0as to &eEuest his la0/e&! Att/. Maca&ae1! to app&oach &espon'ent ?u'1e in his cha"be& an' su11est to hi" to &ef&ain f&o" hea&in1 the case on the ne0 t&ial! p&ecisel/ in o&'e& that &espon'ent ?u'1e "i1ht not be e"ba&&asse' o& e4pose' to public o'iu". The&e is nothin1 in the &eco&' 0hich sho0s that 0hen &espon'ent ?u'1e &efuse' to 'isEualif/ hi"self! the petitione& insiste' in as3in1 fo& his 'isEualification. If the &eEuest of petitione& fo& &espon'ent ?u'1e to 'isEualif/ hi"self ca"e to the 3no0le'1e of the public it 0as because &espon'ent ?u'1e hi"self b&ou1ht up the "atte& in open cou&t. ,hile ,e consi'e& it i"p&ope& fo& a liti1ant o& counsel to see a 5u'1e in cha"be&s an' tal3 to hi" about a "atte& &elate' to the case pen'in1 in the cou&t of sai' 5u'1e! in the case no0 befo&e (s ,e 'o not consi'e& it as an act of conte"pt of cou&t 0hen petitione& as3e' his counsel to see &espon'ent ?u'1e in his cha"be& an' &eEuest hi" to 'isEualif/ hi"self upon a 1&oun' 0hich &espon'ent ?u'1e "i1ht consi'e& 5ust o& #ali'. It is one thin1 to act not in acco&'ance 0ith the &ules! an' anothe& thin1 to act in a "anne& 0hich 0oul' a"ount to a 'is&espect o& an aff&ont to the 'i1nit/ of the cou&t o& 5u'1e. ,e belie#e that the ci&cu"stances that le' &espon'ent ?u'1e to 'ecla&e petitione& in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t 'o not in'icate an/ 'elibe&ate 'esi1n on the pa&t of petitione& to 'is&espect &espon'ent ?u'1e o& to cast aspe&sion a1ainst his inte1&it/ as a 5u'1e. On the cont&a&/! it "a/ be sai' that petitione& 0ante' to a#oi' cause fo& an/ one to 'oubt the inte1&it/ of &espon'ent ?u'1e. This is so because 0hen a pa&t/ liti1ant 'esi&es o& su11ests the #olunta&/ 'isEualification of a 5u'1e! it is un'e&stoo'! 0ithout sa/in1 it in so "an/ 0o&'s! that sai' liti1ant - ha#in1 3no0le'1e of the past o& p&esent &elationship of the 5u'1e 0ith the othe& pa&t/ o& counsel - feels that no "atte& ho0 up&i1ht the 5u'1e is the&e is pe&il of his bein1 unconsciousl/ s0a/e' b/ his fo&"e& connection an' he "a/ un0ittin1l/ &en'e& a biase' o& unfai& 'ecision. *ence! 0hile it "a/ be conce'e' that in &eEuestin1 the 'isEualification of a 5u'1e b/ &eason of his &elation 0ith a pa&t/ o& counsel the&e is so"e i"plication of the p&obabilit/ of his bein1 pa&tial to one si'e! the &eEuest can not constitute conte"pt of cou&t if 'one honestl/ an' in a &espectful "anne&! as 0as 'one b/ petitione& in the p&esent case. Pe&haps the fault of petitione&! if at all! is his ha#in1 as3e' his counsel to "a3e the &eEuest to &espon'ent ?u'1e insi'e the latte&.s cha"be&. The follo0in1 obse&#ation of this Cou&t! spea3in1 th&ou1h M&. ?ustice Di2on! is &ele#ant to the Euestion befo&e (s6 Petitione& in#o3in1 the p&o#isions of section )! Rule )97 of the Rules of Cou&t! a&1ues that the case of &espon'ent 5u'1e 'oes not fall un'e& an/ one of the 1&oun's fo& the 'isEualification of 5u'icial office&s state' the&ein. Assu"in1 ar#uendo that a lite&al inte&p&etation of the le1al p&o#ision &elie' upon 5ustifies petitione&.s contention to a ce&tain 'e1&ee! it shoul' not be fo&1otten that! in const&uin1 an' appl/in1 sai' le1al p&o#ision! 0e cannot 'is&e1a&' its t&ue intention no& the &eal 1&oun' fo& the 'isEualification of a 5u'1e o& 5u'icial office&! 0hich is the i"possibilit/ of &en'e&in1 an i"pa&tial 5u'1"ent upon the "atte& befo&e hi". It has been sai'! in fact! that 'ue p&ocess of la0 &eEui&es a hea&in1 befo&e an i"pa&tial an' 'isinte&este' t&ibunal! an' that e#e&/ liti1ant is entitle' to nothin1 less than the col' neut&alit/ of an i"pa&tial 5u'1e GA@ A". ?u&. p. B7BH. Mo&eo#e&! secon' onl/ to the 'ut/ of &en'e&in1 a 5ust 'ecision! is

the 'ut/ of 'oin1 it in a "anne& that 0ill not a&ouse an/ suspicion as to its fai&ness an' the inte1&it/ of the ?u'1e. ConseEuentl/! 0e ta3e it to be the t&ue intention of the la0 - state' in 1ene&al te&"s - that no 5u'1e shall p&esi'e in a case in 0hich 1e is not 51olly free, disinterested, impartial and independent GA@ A". ?u&. supraH . . . . 6 GE"phasis supplie'H. It is in line 0ith the abo#e<Euote' obse&#ation that this Cou&t! in a"en'in1 the Rules of Cou&t! a''e' the secon' pa&a1&aph un'e& Section ) of Rule )AB! 0hich p&o#i'es that a 5u'1e in the e4e&cise of his soun' 'isc&etion "a/ 'isEualif/ hi"self f&o" sittin1 in a case fo& 5ust o& #ali' 1&oun's othe& than those specificall/ "entione' in the fi&st pa&a1&aph of sai' section.B CThe cou&ts shoul' a'"iniste& 5ustice f&ee f&o" suspicion o& bias an' p&e5u'ice+ othe&0ise! pa&ties liti1ants "i1ht lose confi'ence in the 5u'icia&/ an' 'est&o/ its nobleness an' 'eco&u".C = Respon'ent ?u'1e 'ecla&e' petitione& in conte"pt of cou&t afte& the latte& ans0e&e' C$es! si&C to this Euestion of the 5u'1e6 CDo /ou 'oubt the inte1&it/ of the p&esi'in1 ?u'1e to 'eci'e this case fai&l/ an' i"pa&tiall/ because the la0/e& of the othe& pa&t/ 0as "/ fo&"e& assistantF Do /ou 'oubtF ?ust ans0e& the EuestionFC ,e belie#e that petitione& ha' not co""itte' an act a"ountin1 to conte"pt of cou&t 0hen he "a'e that ans0e&. The petitione& ha' not "isbeha#e' in cou&t! o& in the p&esence of &espon'ent ?u'1e! as to obst&uct o& inte&&upt the p&ocee'in1s. Neithe& 'i' the petitione& act in a "anne& that 0as 'is&espectful to &espon'ent ?u'1e. ,hen petitione& ans0e&e' C$es! si&C to the Euestion as3e' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e! petitione& si"pl/ e4p&esse' his since&e feelin1 un'e& the ci&cu"stances. In o&'e& that a pe&son "a/ be su""a&il/ punishe' fo& 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t! it "ust appea& that his beha#io& o& his utte&ance ten's to obst&uct the p&ocee'in1s in cou&t! o& constitutes an aff&ont to the 'i1nit/ of the cou&t. As state' b/ this Cou&t! CConte"pt of cou&t p&esupposes a contu"acious attitu'e! a floutin1 o& a&&o1ant belli1e&ence! a 'efiance of the cou&t . . . .C8 ,e co""en' the 2eal sho0n b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e in his effo&t to p&otect his o0n inte1&it/ an' the 'i1nit/ of the cou&t. ,e a&e const&aine' to sa/! ho0e#e&! that he ha' 1one a little fa&the& than 0hat 0as necessa&/ un'e& the ci&cu"stances. ,e a&e incline' to belie#e that &espon'ent ?u'1e felt offen'e' 0hen petitione& ans0e&e' C$es! si&C to the Euestion a'#e&te' to in the p&ece'in1 pa&a1&aph. But the petitione& 0as si"pl/ t&uthful an' can'i' to the cou&t 0hen he 1a#e that ans0e&. It 0oul' ha#e been unfai& to &espon'ent ?u'1e ha' petitione& ans0e&e' CNo! si&!C because then he 0oul' not be since&e 0ith the cou&t! an' he 0oul' be inconsistent 0ith the &eEuest that he "a'e th&ou1h his counsel fo& &espon'ent ?u'1e to inhibit hi"self f&o" fu&the& hea&in1 the case. ,hen &espon'ent ?u'1e as3e' that Euestion! he necessa&il/ e4pecte' a t&uthful ans0e& f&o" petitione&! an' in'ee' petitione& 1a#e hi" the t&uthful ans0e&. ,e a&e not pe&sua'e' that in so ans0e&in1 petitione& "eant to be 'is&espectful! offensi#e o& insultin1 to &espon'ent ?u'1e. No& 'o ,e consi'e& that in so ans0e&in1 petitione& "eant to cast &eflection on the inte1&it/ an' honest/ of &espon'ent ?u'1e. ,e belie#e that in so ans0e&in1 the petitione& 0as si"pl/ "anifestin1 the "is1i#in1 of an o&'ina&/ la/"an about the outco"e of his case that is 1oin1 to be t&ie' b/ a 5u'1e 0ho has been closel/ associate' 0ith the counsel fo& his a'#e&sa&/. The petitione& 0oul' ne#e& ha#e e4p&esse' that "is1i#in1 of his ha' &espon'ent ?u'1e not as3e' hi" in open cou&t a Euestion that e#o3e' that ans0e&. A 5u'1e can not p&e#ent an/ pe&son - e#en a liti1ant o& counsel in a case befo&e hi" - to ente&tain in his "in' an opinion about hi" as a 5u'1e. Ce&tainl/! an/ pe&son is entitle' to his opinion about a 5u'1e! 0hethe& that opinion is flatte&in1 to the 5u'1e! o& not. It 0oul' be 'iffe&ent if a pe&son 0oul' 'elibe&atel/ an' "aliciousl/ e4p&ess an a'#e&se opinion about a 5u'1e! 0ithout &eason! but si"pl/ to "ali1n an' 'isc&e'it the 5u'1e. In the case no0 befo&e (s ,e belie#e that petitione& 'i' not "ean to "ali1n o& 'isc&e'it &espon'ent ?u'1e in ans0e&in1 as he 'i'. It can be sai' that petitione& 0as si"pl/ "o#e' b/ a 'esi&e to p&otect his inte&ests in the case pen'in1 befo&e the cou&t! p&esi'e' b/ &espon'ent ?u'1e. A citi2en of this Republic is entitle' to e4pect that ou& cou&ts of 5ustice a&e p&esi'e' b/ 5u'1es 0ho a&e f&ee f&o" bias an' p&e5u'ice - an' it shoul' not be "a'e a count a1ainst the citi2en if he so e4p&esses hi"self t&uthfull/! since&el/! an' &espectfull/. A 5u'1e! as a public se&#ant! shoul' not be so thin<s3inne' o& sensiti#e as to feel hu&t o& offen'e' if a citi2en e4p&esses an honest opinion about hi" 0hich "a/ not alto1ethe& be flatte&in1 to hi". )@ Afte& all! 0hat "atte&s is that a 5u'1e pe&fo&"s his 'uties in acco&'ance 0ith the 'ictates of his conscience an' the li1ht that o' has 1i#en hi". A 5u'1e shoul' ne#e& allo0 hi"self to be "o#e' b/ p&i'e! p&e5u'ice! passion! o& pettiness in the pe&fo&"ance of his 'uties. An' a 5u'1e shoul' al0a/s bea& in "in' that the po0e& of the cou&t to punish fo& conte"pt shoul' be e4e&cise' fo& pu&poses that a&e i"pe&sonal! because that po0e& is inten'e' as a safe1ua&' not fo& the 5u'1es as pe&sons but fo& the functions that the/ e4e&cise. It is 0o&th "entionin1 he&e that nu"e&ous cases the&e ha#e been 0he&e 5u'1es! an' e#en "e"be&s of this Cou&t! 0e&e as3e' to inhibit the"sel#es f&o" t&/in1! o& f&o" pa&ticipatin1 in the consi'e&ation of! a case! but sca&cel/ 0e&e the "o#ants punishe' fo& conte"pt e#en if the 1&oun's upon 0hich the/ base' thei& "otions fo& 'isEualification a&e not a"on1 those p&o#i'e' in the &ules. It is onl/ 0hen the&e 0as 'i&ect i"putation of bias o& p&e5u'ice! o& a stubbo&n insistence to 'isEualif/ the 5u'1e! 'one in a "alicious! a&&o1ant! belli1e&ent an' 'is&espectful "anne&! that "o#ants 0e&e hel' in conte"pt of cou&t. )) An' this libe&al attitu'e of the cou&ts is in 3eepin1 0ith the 'oct&ine that CThe po0e& to punish fo& conte"pt of cou&t shoul' be e4e&cise' on the p&ese&#ati#e an' not on the #in'icti#e p&inciple. Onl/ occasionall/ shoul' the cou&t in#o3e its inhe&ent po0e& in

o&'e& to &etain that &espect 0ithout 0hich the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice "ust falte& o& fail.C )9 The po0e& to punish fo& conte"pt! bein1 '&astic an' e4t&ao&'ina&/ in its natu&e! shoul' not be &eso&te' to unless necessa&/ in the inte&est of 5ustice. )A ,he&efo&e! the o&'e& of &espon'ent ?u'1e 'ate' Feb&ua&/ )@! )87:! in Ci#il Case No. )A9;8 of the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of Pan1asinan! 'ecla&in1 petitione& in 'i&ect conte"pt of cou&t an' o&'e&in1 hi" to pa/ a fine of P;@.@@! is he&eb/ annulle' an' set asi'e+ an' it is o&'e&e' that the su" of P;@.@@! pai' un'e& p&otest b/ petitione& as a fine! be &efun'e' to hi". No costs. It is so o&'e&e'. oncepcion, .!., "eyes, !.B.L., Di)on, Makalintal, Ben#)on, !.P., %anc1e), astro, An#eles and $ernando, !!., concur. Foo,1o,e+

RULE 13. 02

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC Ma" 16, 1922 $1 re FEL$C$ANO GOME', atto&ne/<at<la0! Attorney-General Villa-"eal for t1e Government. 9o appearance for t1e respondent. MALCOLM, J.: The Atto&ne/< ene&al has file' an info&"ation! 0ith affi'a#its! in this cou&t! in 0hich it is alle1e' that Feliciano o"e2 is 1uilt/ of conte"pt of cou&t. It appea&s that Feliciano o"e2 an' ?uan Cailles 0e&e &i#al can'i'ates at the election in )8)8! fo& the position of p&o#incial 1o#e&no& of %a1una. o"e2 0as p&oclai"e' electe'. Cailles conteste' the election successfull/! fi&st in the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance! an' late& in the Sup&e"e Cou&t. The 5u'1"ent of the hi1he& t&ibunal 0as &en'e&e' on Dece"be& 8! )89)!) an' beca"e final on Dece"be& 9:! )89). On ?anua&/ )8! )899! at a public "eetin1 hel' to celeb&ate the fiesta of the "unicipalit/ of %u"ban! %a1una! o"e2 is cha&1e' 0ith ha#in1 sai'! in effect! that the Sup&e"e Cou&t ha' 'eci'e' the election p&otest in fa#o& of Cailles! because o#e&no&< ene&al ,oo'! out of f&ien'ship fo& Cailles! ha' in#ite' the "e"be&s of the cou&t to MalacaDan1 p&e#ious to fo&"ulatin1 the 'ecision! an' the&e! follo0in1 a sec&et confe&ence! ha' offe&e' the" a banEuet. These &e"a&3s of o"e2 0e&e publishe' in La 9acion! a ne0spape& of the cit/ of Manila! on ?anua&/ 9;! )899! an' a&e substantiate' b/ fou& affi'a#its. The position of the "e"be&s of this cou&t in consi'e&in1 the facts lai' befo&e the"! 0ith &efe&ence to the con'uct of Feliciano o"e2! an unsuccessful liti1ant an' an atto&ne/< at<la0 ! is an e4t&e"el/ e"ba&&assin1 one! because althou1h conte"pts a&e i"pe&sonal in natu&e! the cha&1es ha#e pe&sonal aspects. Afte&! ho0e#e&! close sc&utin/ of the case! an' afte& a &eali2ation that to punish fo& conte"pt of cou&t is a 5u&is'iction to be e4e&cise' 0ith sc&upulous ca&e! 0e ha#e co"e to the conclusion that he "atte& shoul' not be 'i1nifie' b/ fu&the& p&ocee'in1s. ,e 'oubt #e&/ "uch if an/ one 0oul' thin3 fo& a "o"ent that "e"be&s of the Sup&e"e Cou&t of the Philippine Islan's 0oul' sell thei& bi&th&i1ht of 5u'icial inte1&it/ fo& a social cou&tes/ an' the fa#o& of the Chief E4ecuti#e. In &ealit/! the %a1una election case 0as ta3en up point b/ point an' 'eci'e' b/ p&inciples! so that 0hen finishe' the&e 0as not a "e"be& of the cou&t 0ho 3ne0 0hat the outco"e 0oul' be until the #ote 0as tabulate' in the 'ecision. ,e feel also! that liti1ants an' la0/e&s shoul' not be hel' to too st&ict an account fo& 0o&'s sai' in the heat of the "o"ent! because of cha1&in at losin1 cases! an' that the bi1 0a/ is fo& the cou&t to con'one e#en conte"ptuous lan1ua1e. ,hen Atto&ne/ Feliciano o"e2 co"es to &eflect on his con'uct! an' on his obli1ations as an office& of the cou&t Cto "aintain to0a&'s it a &espectful attitu'e! not fo& the sa3e of the te"po&a&/ incu"bent of the 5u'icial office but fo& the "aintenance of its sup&e"e i"po&tanceC GCo'e of Ethics! No. )H! he 0ill &eali2e the i"p&op&iet/ of his action. The cha&1es of M&. o"e2! it shoul' be &ecalle'! 'i' not &elate to a pen'in1 cause. The &ule in the "o&e p&o1&essi#e 5u&is'ictions is! that cou&ts! 0hen a case is finishe'! a&e sub5ect to the sa"e c&iticis" as othe& people. ?u'1es "a/ not #in'icate a p&i#ate 0&on1 b/ a public "etho'. Althou1h the hono& an'

inte1&it/ of the cou&t "a/ be assaile'! 5u'1es! li3e othe& pe&sons! a&e &ele1ate' to the cou&ts fo& &e'&ess. As so"e one has 0ell sai'! 0he&e the libe&t/ of the p&ess an' f&ee'o" of public co""ent en's! the&e t/&&an/ be1ins. GPatte&son vs. Colo&a'o I)8@BJ! 9@; (.S.! :;:! 7 R.C.%.! pp. ;)9! et se3.Hl4vvp1:,;n<= ,e conclu'e! the&efo&e! that 0hile the Atto&ne/< ene&al is to be co""en'e' fo& his 2ealous inte&est in the "aintenance of the ?u'icia&/! 0e shoul' not! un'e& the ci&cu"stances! pe&"it the la0<office& to 1o fo&0a&' 0ith the instant p&ocee'in1s. Acco&'in1l/! the pape&s shall be attache' to the pe&sonal &eco&' of Atto&ne/ Feliciano o"e2! 0ithout fu&the& action. So o&'e&e'. Araullo, .!., Avance7a, Villamor, *strand and "omualde), !!., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC 4!6" 24, 1930 $1 re SE.ER$NO LO'ANO a13 ANASTAS$O /UE.E%O. >1e petitioner !ose ?. >orres as complainant in t1is case. Attorney-General !aranilla for t1e Government. %everino M. Lo)ano and Anastacio 'uevedo in t1eir o5n +e1alf. MALCOLM, J.: The no#el Euestion he&e p&esente' &elates to the po0e& of the Sup&e"e Cou&t to punish fo& conte"pt! the e'ito& an' the &epo&te& of a ne0spape&! fo& publishin1 an' inaccu&ate account of the in#esti1ation of a ?u'1e of Fi&st Instance not0ithstan'in1 the in#esti1ation 0as con'ucte' behin' close' 'oo&s! an' not0ithstan'in1 a &esolution of this cou&t 0hich "a3es such p&ocee'in1s confi'ential in natu&e. The Euestion a&ises on the petition of the Atto&ne/< ene&al p&a/in1 the cou&t to &eEui&e the e'ito& an' the &epo&te& to sho0 cause! if an/ the/ ha#e! 0h/ the/ shoul' not be punishe' fo& conte"pt. The ans0e& of the e'ito& plea's 1oo' faith! 0hile the ans0e& of the &epo&te& &elies on no less than ten &easons! so"e "ate&ial an' so"e pue&ile! 0h/ the petition shoul' be 'is"isse'. So"eti"e a1o! the co"plaint of an atto&ne/ a1ainst a ?u'1e of Fi&st Instance 0as b/ &esolution of this cou&t &efe&&e' to the Atto&ne/< ene&al fo& in#esti1ation! &epo&t! an' &eco""en'ation. The Solicito&< ene&al 0as 'esi1nate' to con'uct the in#esti1ation of the cha&1es! an' pu&suant to sai' 'esi1nation! p&ocee'e' to the "unicipalit/ of Capi2! P&o#ince of Capi2! to ta3e the testi"on/ of ce&tain 0itnesses. The in#esti1ation 0as con'ucte' sec&etl/! as is custo"a&/ in cases of this cha&acte&. Not0ithstan'in1! on Ap&il 98! )8A@! @l Pue+lo! a ne0spape& publishe' in Iloilo an' e'ite' b/ Se#e&ino %o2ano! p&inte' an account of the in#esti1ation 0&itten b/ Anastacio >ue#e'o! sai' to be an e"plo/ee in the office of the ?u'1e un'e& in#esti1ation. The openin1 po&tion of this a&ticle! as t&anslate' f&o" Spanish to En1lish! &ea's6 NOTES FROM CAPIK INVESTI ATION OF T*E C*AR ES A AINST ?(D E ARD(LO 444 444 444 CAPIK! April -A, ,./B The announce' in#esti1ation of the a'"inist&ati#e cha&1es file' in the Sup&e"e Cou&t b/ e4<atto&ne/ ?ose $. To&&es a1ainst ?u'1e a&'uDo 0as co""ence' on the 99n' instant in the Cou&t of Fi&st Instance of Capi2. The Solicito&< ene&al! Ale4an'e& Re/es! 0as 'esi1nate' to in#esti1ate the cha&1es in behalf of the Atto&ne/< ene&al! to 0ho" the/ 0e&e in'o&se' fo& in#esti1ation.

It appea&s that it 0as so"e th&ee "onths a1o that the in#esti1ation 0as be1un in the office of the Solicito&< ene&al in Manila! an' that! the&efo&e! the p&ocee'in1s ta3en he&e 0e&e but its continuation. The hea&in1 0as hel' behin' close' 'oo&s! not0ithstan'in1 "/ 'esi&e to atten' the sa"e in o&'e& to ta3e notes an' sen' the"! fo& publication! to the ne0spape& @l Pue+lo! 0hich I &ep&esent as co&&espon'ent. *o0e#e&! behin' the sc&een 0hich shut the 'oo& of the in#esti1ation &oo"! so"ethin1 coul' be hea&' of 0hat t&anspi&e' 0ithin! an' to this ci&cu"stance! to1ethe& 0ith the co""ents offe&e' #ratis et amore in social ci&cles! a&e 'ue the p&esent notes of the hea&in1. The &e"ainin1 po&tion of the a&ticle pu&po&ts to 1i#e an account of the e#i'ence of the 'iffe&ent 0itnesses. Re1a&'in1 this account! the co"plainant atto&ne/ alle1es that the facts the&ein containe' a&e Cfalse! "alicious! an' unt&ueC an' that Csai' &epo&t too3 si'es 0ith the &espon'ent 5u'1e . . . an' e4p&esse' an opinion as to the "e&its of the sa"e! 0ith the ob5ect un'oubte'l/! to influence the action of the in#esti1ato& an' the public in 1ene&al an' to obst&uct! e"ba&&ass o& i"pe'e the cou&se of the p&esent in#esti1ation.C In the sa"e connection! the Atto&ne/< ene&al states that the ne0spape& &epo&t C'oes not contain a fai& an' t&ue account of the facts 'isclose' at the in#esti1ation! . . . c&eatin1 a 0&on1 i"p&ession in the "in' of the public an' ten'in1 to influence i"p&ope&l/ the action of this cou&t in the sai' pen'in1 "atte&.C (n'e& the ci&cu"stances! the obse&#ations of the Atto&ne/< ene&al "ust necessa&il/ be accepte' as t&ue. At the ti"e of publication of the afo&e"entione' a&ticle! the&e 0as in fo&ce a &esolution of this cou&t 'ate' ?anua&/ 9B! )899! 0hich p&o#i'e' CThat all p&ocee'in1s loo3in1 to the suspension o& 'isba&"ent of la0/e&s! an' all p&ocee'in1s loo3in1 to the suspension o& &e"o#al of 5u'1es of fi&st instance! shall be consi'e&e' confi'ential in natu&e until the final 'isposition of the "atte&.C In so fa& as this &esolution &elates to the suspension o& &e"o#al of ?u'1es of Fi&st Instance! it fin's suppo&t in section )BA of the A'"inist&ati#e Co'e! autho&i2in1 the Sup&e"e Cou&t to con'uct inEui&ies into the con'uct of ?u'1es of Fi&st Instance Can' to a'opt such &ules of p&oce'u&e in that &e1a&' as it "a/ 'ee" p&ope&.C The &eason fo& the a'option of such a &ule is &ea'il/ e4plainable an' consists in the p&actice of liti1ants an' othe&s "a3in1 #in'icti#e an' "alicious cha&1es a1ainst la0/e&s an' ?u'1es of Fi&st Instance! 0hich a&e &uinous to the &eputations of the &espon'ent la0/e&s an' 5u'1es. It 0as acco&'in1l/ thou1ht best to 3eep such "atte&s sec&et fo& the 1oo' of the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice until the final outco"e of the p&ocee'in1s coul' be asce&taine'. ,e co"e no0 to a 'ete&"ination of the &i1ht of the cou&t to ta3e action in a case of this cha&acte&. It has p&e#iousl/ been e4p&essl/ hel' that the po0e& to punish fo& conte"pt is inhe&ent in the Sup&e"e Cou&t GIn &e Mell/ I)8)7J! A; Phil.! 8::H. That this po0e& e4ten's to a'"inist&ati#e p&ocee'in1s as 0ell as to suits at la0 cannot be 'oubte'. It is as necessa&/ to "aintain &espect fo& the cou&ts! in'ee' to safe1ua&' thei& #e&/ e4istence! in a'"inist&ati#e cases conce&nin1 the &e"o#al an' suspension of 5u'1es as it is in an/ othe& class of 5u'icial p&ocee'in1s. The &ule is 0ell establishe' that the ne0spape& publications ten'in1 to i"pe'e! obst&uct! e"ba&ass! o& influence the cou&ts in a'"iniste&in1 5ustice in a pen'in1 suit o& p&ocee'in1 constitute c&i"inal conte"pt 0hich is su""a&il/ punishable b/ the cou&ts. The &ule is othe&0ise afte& the cause is en'e'. It is also &e1a&'e' as an inte&fe&ence 0ith the 0o&3 of the cou&ts to publish an/ "atte&s 0hich thei& polic/ &eEui&es shoul' be 3ept p&i#ate! as fo& e4a"ple the sec&ets of the 5u&/ &oo"! o& p&ocee'in1s in ca"e&a G7 R. C. %.! pp. ;@=<;);H An e4a"ination of the autho&ities 'iscloses that little attention has been 'i&ecte' to facts li3e those befo&e us! an' that in the fe0 cases 0hich ha#e 1i#en consi'e&ation to the Euestion the&e e4ist 'i#e&1ence of opinions. The En1lish cou&ts a&e "o&e st&in1ent in p&ohibitin1 the publication of thei& p&ocee'in1s than a&e the A"e&ican cou&ts. Thus 0he&e the petitione& an' he& solicito& publishe' a cop/ of the t&ansc&ipt of the official sho&than' notes in a case of a #e&/ 'elicate an' p&i#ate cha&acte& in cont&a#ention of an o&'e& 'i&ectin1 that the cause be hea&' in ca"e&a! the p&esi'in1 5u'1e in En1lan' foun' the petitione& an' he& solicito& in conte"pt of cou&t but accepte' thei& e4cuses an' apolo1ies GScott #s. Scott I)8)9J! A". Ann. Cas.! )8)9<B! ;:@H. A 'ecision of the Sup&e"e Cou&t of Io0a inclines to 1ene&al o& special &ule the publication of testi"on/ pen'in1 an in#esti1ation has been p&ohibite'! a 0illful #iolation of such &ule "i1ht a"ount to a conte"pt! especiall/ if the &ule itself 'ecla&e' the act to be a conte"pt GState of Io0a #s. Dunha" I)=;=J! 7 Io0a! 9:;H. But in a Califo&nia 'i#o&ce case! althou1h the t&ial cou&t o&'e&e' that no public &epo&t of the testi"on/ shoul' be "a'e! an' the&eafte& punishe' the e'ito& of a ne0spape& fo& publishin1 a &epo&t of the t&ial! on the ce&tio&a&i the Sup&e"e Cou&t of Califo&nia annulle' the p&ocee'in1s of the cou&t un'e& &e#ie0. As e4planato&/ of this 5u'1"ent! it shoul' be sai' that a fai& an' t&ue &epo&t of the testi"on/ 0as publishe' an' that the &esult 0as influence' b/ the ph&aseolo1/ of the Califo&nia la0 GRe Sho&t&i'1e I)=8AJ! 88 Cal.! ;97+ 9) %. R. A.! B;;H. Alon1 si"ila& lines is the case of E4 pa&te Foste& GI)8A@J! 7@ %. R. A.! 7A)H! co"in1 f&o" the Te4as Cou&t of C&i"inal Appeals! an' not hol'in1 that "e&el/ publishin1 a t&ue state"ent of the testi"on/ a''uce' f&o" the 0itnesses in the cou&se of a public t&ial in the cou&ts of 5ustice 'oes not autho&i2e a fin'in1 of conte"pt. To conclu'e ou& &e#ie0 of the

pe&tinent 'ecisions! 0e 'esi&e to Euote f&o" the 'ecision of the Sup&e"e Cou&t of ,isconsin in Bu&ns #s. State GI)8))J! ):; ,is.! ABA+ ):@ A". St. Rep.! )@=)H! 0he&e! in &efe&&in1 to the co""en'ation "ete' out to the cou&ts of En1lan'! it 0as sai'6 C?u'icial p&ocee'in1s! in a case 0hich the la0 &eEui&es to be con'ucte' in sec&et fo& the p&ope& a'"inist&ation of 5ustice! shoul' ne#e& be! 0hile the case is on t&ial! 1i#en publicit/ b/ the p&ess.C ,ith &efe&ence to the applicabilit/ of the abo#e autho&ities! it shoul' be &e"a&3e' fi&st of all that this cou&t is not boun' to accept an/ of the" absolutel/ an' unEualifie'l/. ,hat is the best fo& the "aintenance of the ?u'icia&/ in the Philippines shoul' be the c&ite&ion. *e&e! in cont&ast to othe& 5u&is'ictions! 0e nee' not be o#e&l/ sensiti#e because of the stin1 of ne0spape& a&ticles! fo& the&e a&e no 5u&ies to be 3ept f&ee f&o" outsi'e influence. *e&e also 0e a&e not &est&aine' b/ &e1ulato&/ la0. The onl/ la0! an' that the 5u'1e "a'e! 0hich is at all applicable to the situation! is the &esolution a'opte' b/ this cou&t. That the &espon'ents 0e&e i1no&ant of this &esolution is no e4cuse! fo& the #e&/ a&ticle publishe' b/ the" in'icates that the hea&in1 0as hel' behin' close' 'oo&s an' that the info&"ation of the &epo&te& 0as obtaine' f&o" outsi'e the sc&een an' f&o" co""ents in social ci&cles. Then in 0&itin1 up the in#esti1ation! it ca"e about that the testi"on/ 0as "utilate' an' that the &epo&t &eflecte' upon the action of the co"plainant to his possible 'isa'#anta1e. The O&1anic Act 0isel/ 1ua&antees f&ee'o" of speech an' p&ess. This constitutional &i1ht "ust be p&otecte' in its fullest e4tent. The cou&t has he&etofo&e 1i#en e#i'ence of its tole&ant &e1a&' fo& cha&1es un'e& to %ibel %a0 0hich co"e 'an1e&ousl/ close to its #iolation. ,e shall continue in this chosen path. The libe&t/ of the citi2en "ust be p&ese&#e' in all of its co"pletenes. But license o& abuse of libe&t/ of the p&ess an' of the citi2en shoul' not be confuse' 0ith libe&t/ in its t&ue sense. As i"po&tant as is the "aintenance of the ?u'icia&/. Respect fo& the ?u'icia&/ cannot be ha' if pe&sons a&e p&i#ile1e' to sco&n a &esolution of the cou&t a'opte' fo& 1oo' pu&poses! an' if such pe&sons a&e to be pe&"itte' b/ subte&&anean "eans of 'iffuse inaccu&ate accounts of confi'ential p&ocee'in1s to the e"ba&&ass"ent of the pa&ties an' the cou&ts. In &ecent Fe'e&al case G(. S. #s. Sullens I)898J! A7 Fe'. I9'J! 9A@! 9A=! 9A8H! ?u'1e *ol"es #e&/ app&op&iatel/ sai'6 The a'"inist&ation of ?ustice an' the f&ee'o" of the p&ess! thou1h sepa&ate an' 'istinct! a&e eEuall/ sac&e'! an' neithe& shoul' be #iolate' b/ the othe&. The p&ess an' the cou&ts ha#e co&&elati#e &i1hts an' 'uties an' shoul' coope&ate to uphol' the p&inciples of the Constitution an' la0s! f&o" 0hich the fo&"e& &ecei#es its p&e&o1ati#e an' the latte& its 5u&is'iction. The &i1ht of le1iti"ate publicit/ "ust be sc&upulousl/ &eco1ni2e' an' ca&e ta3en at all ti"es to a#oi' i"pin1in1 upon it. In a clea& case 0he&e it is necessa&/! in o&'e& to 'ispose of 5u'icial business unha"pe&e' b/ publication 0hich &easonabl/ ten' to i"pai& the i"pa&tialit/ of #e&'icts! o& othe&0ise obst&uct the a'"inist&ation of 5ustice! this cou&t 0ill not hesitate to e4e&cise its un'oubte' po0e& to punish fo& conte"pt. . . . . 444 444 444

This cou&t "ust be pe&"itte' to p&ocee' 0ith the 'isposition of its business in an o&'e&l/ "anne& f&ee f&o" outsi'e inte&fe&ence obst&ucti#e of its constitutional functions. This &i1ht 0ill be insiste' upon as #ital to an i"pa&tial cou&t! an'! as a last &eso&t! as an in'i#i'ual e4e&cises the &i1ht of self<'efense! it 0ill act to p&ese&#e its e4istence as an unp&e5u'ice' t&ibunal. . . . . As has been &e"a&3e'! the pa&ties plea' i1no&ance in e4tenuation of thei& offense. ,e accept as ce&tain this 'efense. It is "a'e 3no0n also that othe& ne0spape&s! pa&ticula&l/ in the "et&opolis! ha#e been 1uilt/ of si"ila& acts. That li3e0ise is un'oubte'l/ t&ue! but 'oes not pu&1e the &espon'ents of thei& conte"pt. All facts consi'e&e'! 0e 'esi&e on the one han' to p&ocee' on the co&&ecti#e an' not t&ue &etaliato&/ i'ea of punish"ent! 0hile on the othe& 1i#in1 'ue notice that p&actices of 0hich the &espon'ents a&e 1uilt/ "ust stop. It is the hol'in1 of the cou&t that the &espon'ents Se#e&ino %a2ano an' Anastacio >ue#e'o a&e 1uilt/ of conte"pt of cou&t! an' it is the o&'e& of the cou&t that the/ be punishe' fo& such conte"pt b/ the pa/"ent of a no"inal su" b/ each of the" in the a"ount of t0ent/ pesos GP9@H! to be tu&ne' into the office of the cle&3 of cou&t 0ithin the pe&io' of fifteen 'a/s f&o" &eceipt of notice! 0ith the a'"onition that if the/ fail to co"pl/! fu&the& an' "o&e '&astic action b/ the cou&t 0ill be necessa&/. Avance7a, .!., *strand, !o1ns, "omualde) and Villa-"eal, !!., concur. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila

FIRST DIVISION A.0. No. 188 No4e5!e( 29, 1976 RICAR2A GA6RI-L 2- 6.0ANGLAG, complainant' vs. -S,-6AN ,. 6.0ANGLAG, respondent. RESOLUTION

,--HAN3--, J.: In the Court#s decision of Septem"er *5' %()1' the Court found respondent uilt! of ross immoral conduct and ordered his suspension from the practice of law for a period of two A*B !ears. Respondent filed several motions for reconsideration' all of which were denied per the Court#s Resolutions of Novem"er *7' %()1' $ecem"er %(' %()1' :anuar! (' %()5 and Octo"er 17' %()5. On ,arch 1%' %()&' the Cler6 of Court received a %st Indorsement dated /e"ruar! *%' %()& from then +ssistant Executive Secretar! Ronaldo ?. Camora 2re.uestin comment andDor appropriate action2 on the therewith enclosed petition of respondent to the <resident of the <hilippines that he 2promul ateAsB a decree that the order of suspension "! the Supreme Court "e set aside and that !our hum"le self "e allowed to "ecome an active mem"er of the New Societ!2. The Court per its Resolution of :une %9' %()& directed the Cler6 of Court 2to furnish the Office of the <resident throu h +ssistant Executive Secretar! Camora with copies of the Court#s decision of Septem"er *5' %()1 wherein the Court in a spirit of li"eralit! "! ma-orit! vote imposed a lesser penalt! of two8!ear suspension instead of dis"arment Aas voted "! a minorit! composed of :ustices Castro and ,a6asiarB and of the Court#s resolutions of Novem"er *7' %()1 and $ecem"er %(' %()1 den!in for lac6 of merit respondent#s two motions for reconsideration dated Octo"er %0' %()1 and $ecem"er %*' %()12= and further resolved 2to re.uire respondent to show cause within ten A%7B da!s from notice wh! he should not "e su"-ected to further disciplinar! action for ma6in false statements and misrepresentations in his petition to the <resident that he has "een alle edl! deprived of due process of law contrar! to the facts of record as stated in the Court#s decision' and for ross i norance of the law and of the Constitution in as6in the <resident to set aside "! decree this Court#s decision imposin upon him two8!ear suspension from the practice of law2. In a *nd Indorserment of :une %0' %()& and received "! the Cler6 of Court on the same da!' then +ssistant Executive Secretar! Camora forwarded respondent#s letter of the same date to the <resident statin that 2ATBhe undersi ned "! now AhasB come to reali4e that I made a "i mista6e "! ma6in said letter to !ou' >our Excellenc!' "ecause the 3onora"le Supreme Court ma! "elieve that I ma! "e challen in the decision which is alread! final and executor! and as such do not o"serve the doctrine of protocol of separation of powerAsB2' and withdrawin and as6in the <resident to disre ard his first letter. Respondent in his Explanation of :ul! *1' %()& cited the fact that he had 2immediatel!2 withdrawn his letter as6in for the <resident#s intervention and that 2latel!' however' he has full! reali4ed that the Chief Executive is "ereft AofB an! authorit! to set aside or modif! the decision of this 3onora"le Supreme Court2 and 2with folded hands "e s and as6s an apolo ! from the mem"ers of this 3onora"le Court' with the full assurance that nothin of this sort will "e repeated "! him in the future.2 Respondent served his two8!ear suspension' as dul! noted in the Court#s Resolution of Novem"er )' %()&. Since respondent has apolo i4ed for his 2"i mista6e2 and now appreciates that under the fundamental principle of separation of powers enshrined in "oth the %(1& and %()1 Constitutions' a decision of this Court ma! not "e set aside "! the <resident' the Court is disposed to view his misconduct andDor i norance with li"eralit! and will administer a reprimand with warnin of severe action on an! future trans ressions' considerin respondent#s unenvia"le record. + final word is called for on respondent#s statement in his Explanation inferrin that he was led to file his petition with the <resident "! the fact that his motions for reconsideration 2were onl! denied "! the Cler6 of Court without an! comment whatsoever2. +s the Court has had occasion to state in People

vs. Catolico 7 and earlier cases' this remar6 of respondent exposes his lac6 of appreciation or disre ard of the time8honored usa e of the Court that minute resolutions' summons and processes of the Court' upon "ein dul! adopted and recorded are transmitted to the interested parties "! and upon the si nature of the Cler6 of Court who is dul! authori4ed to do so. Eith the thousands of resolutions approved monthl! "! the Court' it would undul! tax the time and attention of the Chief :ustice and mem"ers of the Court to the pre-udice of the administration of -ustice if all such papers' other than decisions' could "e released onl! upon their own si natures. +CCOR$IN@L>' respondent is here"! administered a reprimand for ross i norance of the law and of the Constitution in havin as6ed the <resident to set aside "! decree the Court#s decision which suspended him for two !ears from the practice of law' with warnin that the commission of an! trans ression in the future of his oath and duties as a mem"er of the "ar will "e severel! dealt with. SO OR$ERE$. Makasiar Mu!oz"Palma Concepcion Jr. and Martin JJ. concur.