Rare Periodicals

Vicente J. Francisco and Francisco Marasigan, Petitions, vs. Eduardo Enriquez, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Respondent, G. R. No. L-7058, March 20, 1964 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title

Vicente J. Francisco and Francisco Marasigan, Petitions, vs. Eduardo Enriquez, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Respondent, G. R. No. L-7058, March 20, 1964 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Language

English

Spanish

Source

The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Contempt of court

Court of First Instance -- Negros Occidental

Eduardo Enriquez

Vicente J. Francisco

Francisco Marasigan

Rights

Abstract

[This article refers to the petition of Attorney Francisco and Attorney Marasigan regarding their arrest ordered by Judge Eduardo Enriquez due to their failure to attend a trial of a case in Negros Occidental. ]

Fulltext

supervened that would change the nature of the offenae for which petitioner was tried in the military court, the alleged additional overt acts specified in the amended information in the civil court ha"Ving already taken pla.ce when petitioner was indicted in the former court. Of more pertinent application is the following from 15 American Jurisprudence, 56-5~: 4'SubJect to statutory provisions a11d the interpretation thereof for the purpose of arriving at the intent of the legislature in enacting them, it may "be said that as a rule only one prosecution may be had for a continuing crime, and· that where an offense charged consists of a series of acts extending over a period of time, a conviction or acquittal for a crime based on a portion of that period will ba.r a prosecution covering the whole period. In such case the offense is single and indivisible; &nd whether the time alleged is longer or shorter, the com. mission of the acts which constitute it, within any portion to give the explanation and had submitted the required evidence, for him and in behalf of Atty. F, there waa no reason to require the further personal appearance of the petitioner for the same purpose in Bacolod on some other da.te. The swom explanation is according· to our rule~ prima facie evidence <Sec. 100, Rule 123). 3, IBID; IBID; IBID. - Atty. 14 who had sworn that the fact.a stated in the explanati~ are of his personal knowledge, and who was the one called upon to attend the Criminal Case of the 15th day of Sept., 1963, was a competent person to give a pertinent explanation of the absence of the petitioner on the date of trial on Sept. 15, and he actually offered to give such explana.. tion. It does not appear that there was any question asked of him a~ut the non.appearance of the petitioner· which he could not answer by his own knowledge and about which only Atty, F could give legally admissabJe answe1-. of the time alleged, is a bar to the conviction for other aCts committed within the same time. x x x." · 4• IBID; IBID; IBID. - The denial to hear Atty. M's explana.. tion only because it includes Atty. F's 'ex:planation,,is against the law. It is indisputable that he has the right to be heard in its own representations. then and there. There was no reaaon to compel him to come back. It was also indisputable that Atty. F had also the right. to be heard "by himself or counsel" <Rule 64, Sec. 3). There was at the moment no reason at all to requh·e his personal appearance, even laying aside his delicate state of health at the time which wa!!I an impediment for him to travel. As to the claim that the military court had no jurisdiction ovU the case. well lmown is the rule that when several courts ha.ve con.. current jurisdiction of the same offense, the court first acquiring jurisdiction of the prosecution retains it to the exclu8ion of the athers. This rule, however, requires that jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall have first been obtained by the court in which the first charge was filed. C22 C. J. S. pp. 186-18'1.) . Tbe record in the present case shllWs that the information for tre._ son in the People's Court was filed on March 12, 1946, but petitioner JUSTICE ANGELO BAUTISTA, concurring. had not yet been a.rreat4d or brought into the custody of the court - l, the warrant of attest .had not ~ been inued - when the indictment for the same offense was filed in the military court on January 13, 1947. Under the rule cited, mere priority in the filing of the complaint in one court does not give that cou~ priorit)· lo take cognizance of the offense, it being necessary in addition that the court where the information is filed has custody or jurisdiction of the person of defendant. ' It a.ppearing that the offense charged in the mili'bt.ry court 2. and in the civil Court is the same, that the military court had jurisdiction to try ~he case and 'that both Ct)Urts derive their powers froni- one sovereignty, the sentence meted out by the military court tn the petitioner shouJd, in accordance with the precedents above. cited, be a bar to petitioner's further prosecution for the same offense in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. 3. Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is granted and the criminal case for treason against the petitioner pending in that court ordered dismissed. Without costs. Paf'0.8,. Pa.blo, Bengzon, Padilla, M~tema.yor, Jugo, Ba.uti8ta Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Diokno, J, J., concur. XIII CONTE.MPT OF COURT; POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT. - The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts a.nd ia essential to their right of self.preservation, "The reason for this is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such para.nty said institution would be resting on a veey shaky foundation." Th.is power is i-ecognized by our Rules of Court <Ru1e 64.). IBID; KINDS OF CONTEMPT. - Under this rule, contempt is' divided into two kinds: (1) direct contempt, that is, one committed in the presence o!, or so near, the Judge as to obstruct him in. the administration of justice; and t2) constructive contempt, or that which is committed out of the presence of the court, as in refusing to obey it& order or lawfuJ process. · IBID; HOW IT SHOULD BE INITIATED. - As a rnle, con.. tempt proceedin.c is initiated by filing a 'charge in writing with the court. <Section 3, :RuJc 64.) It has·been held however that the court ma.y motu fWOpio require a person to answer why he &hould not be punished fo1· contemptuous behaviom·. Such power is necessary for its own p1-otection against an imp1·oper inte1·fe1·ence with the due administration of justice. Vicente J. FNticisco atid F·ra.nciscn Marasigan, Petition.M"B, vs. Edutwdo Ent~, Judge of the CoW""t of Fi-rst Instance of Negros Occidental, Respondent, G. R. No. L.7058, March 20, 1964. 1. CONTEMF1.' OF COURT; FAILURE OF AN ATTORNEY TO APPEAR AT THE TRIAL OF THE CASE; EXPLANATION FOR .SUCH FAILURE; CASE AT BAR. - Attorney F and 4.. IBID; CASE AT BAR. - The contempt under consideration is a constructive one it having arisen in view of the failure of Attys. F and M to obey an 01-d.er of the court, and for such failure i·espondent Judge ordered them to appear and show cause why they should not be punished. for contempt. The1-e wa.s therefore no formal charge filed against them but the action wa111 taken directly by the court u~n- its own initiative. his assistant M with law office in Manila were the lawyers of L &. in a. criminal ease instituted in Negros Occidental. On the day when the trial of the case was to be resumed in BaCPlod both lawyei·s dld not appear. Ju~ Eduardo Enriquez ordered their arrest. Attorney F requested that the order be suspended and sent Attorney M to Negros to explain that their failure to at.. tend at the trial was fully justified. Judge Eniiquez refused to listen to Attorney M's explanation because he wanted Attorney F to appP.ar peJ:sonally and to be the one to pplain why he did / . not appear on the said date. Held: The order is without reason &ll;d the judge acted in excess o! jurisdiction. 6. 2. IBID; IBID; IBID« - After the required explanation had been presented under oath, and after Atty. M J1a.d. appeared in per.son IBID; WAIVER OF APPEARANCE. - The rule on th-a matter is not cJcar <Section 3, Rule 64>. While on one hand it allows a person charged with contempt to appear by himself or by com1sel, on the other, the rule contains the foJ1owing provision: "But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court front iwuing process to bring the accused party into court or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.'' Ap. parently, this is the provision on which respondent Judge is now relying in insisting On the persona£ app£arance of Atty. F. IBID; POWER OF THE COURT TO ORDER .ARREST OF THE ACCUSED PARTY. - This powet <to order the 11.rrest of the accused party> can only be exercised when there ere good reasons justifying its exercise. The record discloses -none. The May 31, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL 235 reason for the appearance is already well known. The conWmPtuous charge was clear.. The only thing required was for Atty. F to explain his conduct. Thill he did in his telegram to the court intimating that .his failure to appear was due to failing health and doct(,lr's advice,. while, on the other hand, he caused Atty. M to appear for llim and elaborate on his explanation. Thia attitude, in my opinion, is a substantial compliance with the rule and justi .. fies the action taken by Atty. F. Vicente J. Francisco and F. V. Ma'l'CUrigan for petitioners. Eduardo P. Arboleda for respondent. DECISION DIOKNO, M.; La cuestion en este recurso Ila quedado reducida a la de si t'I Honorable Juez recurrido incurriO tm exceso de ju1·isdiccion al insistir en $U orden de que los recunentes comparezcan persona-lmente ante eJ, en la ciudad de Bucolod para quc e.Xpongan las ra.zones por_ que no se les debe imponer accion disciplinaria por no haber comparecido el dia 15 de septiembre de 1953 para la continuacion de la vista de la causa criminal No. 3220 del Juzgado de Primera lnfltanci&de Negros Occi .. dental, intitllle.do Pueblo contra Lacson )' otros, por asesino.to. Los hechos pertinentes, brevemente expllestos, son Joa siguientei::c: l.o Los recurrentes, Francisco y Marasigan, eran los <1.bogados del acusado Rafael Lacson. El primero era el abogado -principaJ y el segundo el auxiliar, queen ausencia del primero actuarla y actuO,.en efecto, en su lugar. Marasigan era,ademas,abogado de otro acusado en la causa. El 15 de septitm:ibre de 1953 estaba sciialada la continua.. cion de l& vista de la causa criminal, y ninguno de los recurrentes com.. ps.recieron, rrl em.iaron oportuna explicaciOn de su ausencia. ~I acusado Lacson estaba presente, pero se limito 8 informar que el recu~ rrente Francisco le habia dicho que '1 personalmente no asistirla en la viata sino el recurrente Me.i·asigan. Con motivo de la ausencia de ambos abogados, la vista bubo de transferirse para otro dia. 2.o Con vista de esta. ausencia ineJtplicada, el Hon. Juez recurrido o:rdenO el arresto de los recurrent.es. En el mismo dia, el recurrente Francisco dirigio ar Juez recur1ido el siguiente telegra1na, de•de Manila: . 4'Septiembre 15, 1953 Honorable Edua,rdo Enriquez B.acolod City . Please suspend order until we have opportunity to explain stop Attorney Marasigan flying to Negroa tomorrow A .lo ~ue el Hon. Juez ~rrido contestO =~!.:~ncisco" "Bacolod Sep 16-53 Atty. Vicente Francisco Manila Re tel order suspended as requested- but 7ou are required personally to appear twenty fourth ~t to aplain wh7 you should not be held in contempt. Judge Enriquez" El anterior telegram.a fue recibido por el recurrente Francisco cuando el recunente Marasigan ya habi'"a salido por aviOn para Bacolod, por lo que aqu~ envi& el nDamo dia el &iguiente telegram• al Hon. Juez recurrido: "Judge Enriques Bacolod City Received Your telegram. ·when Atty. .Marasigan had gone already to Negroa by plane to submit explanation why he and IDJ'aelf did not attend last hearing Lacson case stop I submit said explanatiOn and motion of withdrawal for your action with. out hearing stop Request m1 presence be diapensed. with 011 the 24th .cannot mak~ trip to Negroa. during thia stormy le880D due to failing health and doctora advice Vicente Francisco" 3. o El recurrente .Marasigan UegO a Bacolod el miam.O dia 16 de &Qtiembr.e -de 1953; llevando consigo la ezplicaci&m. de la au.. sencia de ambos recurrentea en la "Vista del 16, en fonna de un escrito intitulado "Ex.parte Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Al'l'est," fechado 15 de septiembre, 1953, firmado por smbos recurrentes, y jurado por Marasigan <Exh. D>. El 17 de septiembre de 1953,. el reeurrente Marasigan present6 el escrito y comparecUi ante el Hon. Juez recurrido. Lo que sigue es Parte de la transcripci&n de las notas taquigraficas de lo que ocurri6 en esa ocasiOn: "Marasigan: I would like to state that I am here to explain for Atty. Francisco and for myself. --x- -x__.:. - x - "Court: Practically that order has been suspended or practiealh· set aside because of the telegram of Mr. Francisco sent on the fifteenth. There is a telegram sent by Atty. Francisco !laking that the orde1• be suspended because yo_u a.re coming here by plane, but in my replf .. telegram I advised him that the order was suspended. , but he must appear here on the twenty fourth to explain and to show ca.use why no disciplinary actions should be taken against him. Besides that telegram, I dictated an order requiring Mr. Francisco and you - Mr. Marasigan - to appear on the twenty foui:th. Inasmuch as you 1:1.re here the court is ready to listen to your explanation but that is insofar as you are .concerned only. The court still require.>& Mr. Francisco to appear before this court, before or on St!ptember 24th because I will not accept your explanation for Mr. Francisco. So you choose, do you wa.nt to have your explanation on the twenty fourth with Mr. Franci11co or do you want to advance your explanation by disregarding your explanation for Mr. Francisco? Because tl1e court wants Mr. Francisco to be present here to explain .for himself and no explanation from somebody else will be accepted by this court beca.use I would like to propound some questions to Atty. F1·ancisco. - x - - x - - x - "Court: I have told you already that I ~ill not accept any explanation from somebody else but from Mr. Francisco "him.. self. He must appear here personally. ·--x- · - x - 'Court: Let us cut short this discu::;sion. I made it clear to you that the court will not accept any explanation tor Mr. Francisco by somebody except by Mr. Fra.ncisco only, and there is a standing order requiring. him to be here and not thru somebody else. "Atty. Marasigan: That is it. The court admits that the only purpose in requiring him to .come here is to give bim an op.. portunity to explain. Now I am here·to esplain for him in the meantime. · - x - --.'t- - x - "Court: I will let it appear on the 1'8('.Ql'd that the court is not ready to receive any explnna.tion for Mr. Fran!:isco by somebody else. . "Atty, .Marasigan: Not even if it will be an explanation that would justify the failure of Atty, Frandaco to app_ear here? "Court: I am not concerned with the explanation for Mr. Fran.. cisco by somebod)' ell!S• - x - -.x- - x - 04Court: Well, if you believe that it is his right let us wait for Atty .. Fn.ncisco. If be wnnts to ·be here it is okay and if he does not want to come here it is also oka7 but I ku:ow what steps I will take. "Court: The telegram of .Mr. Francisco is as follows: "Please 8118pend o:rde1' until we hue opportunity to e-xplain stop A,tty. .Marasigan flying· to Negroa tomorrow." This wa& received at -6:46 p.m., September l.5, Tuesday. On the following day, yeat;e.rday, I amwered that telegram. "Re tel order suspended &a requested but you are .required personally to appear twenty fourth htstant to uplain why you ahoald not be held in contempt." This U. very clear. .,Personally." The court wants him to appear pe-rsonally u.d not thro another person. :Beside& that telegl'llm, here is the order of the court signed by roe yeate:tda.y, which I am , quoting: 4'A peticion del abogado Sr. Vicente J. Francisco 236 LAWYERS JOURNAL llay 81, 195' eontenida en su teleg1:aina c;le ayer, por el presente u suspendo aquella parte de ta orden de 16 de Septiembre de 1963 en cuanto se ordena el arresto de los abogados Sres. Vicente J. Francisco y Franeisco Marasigan, y en &U lug&l: se ordena a ambos abc.gados para que personalmente comparezcan ante e&ta Sala el 24 de Septicmbre de 19U8, a ~ 9:00 de I& mafiana y expongan las razones por qu8' no se lea debe imponer acei6n disciplinaria por no haber comp:a.rcido el dia 16 de Septiembre de 1953 para la. continuaciOn de IA vista de esta causa. Envfense por correo aereo y por eer tificado copiaa de esta orden a los referidos abog&doa. . A.&i ae ordena." The court in open court will offer you a copy of this order and please sign on the original of this order. <To a court personnel who wns present there.) Where is a copy of that. You furnish Mr. Marasiga.n. <To Atty. Maraai.gan. > Now, if )'CU want to advance your appearance here by virtue of that order you can do ao but I will repeat: I won't hear any explanation to be made by you in behalf of Mr. Francisco because the. court will stick to its ord~r and will require Mr. Francisco to be here on the 24th," (pp. 3766, 366T, 3768 and 3759, t.s.n.) "Atty. Marasigan: At any rate I will explain and I ask the court to consider that whatever I expla.in; I explain it not only in connection with my case but in connection with the case of Atty. Francisco, I explain in the meantime. "Court: If tha.t is the condition, I will not listen to you - if you will abide by that condition. - x - - x - "Atty, Marasigan: But I insist ... "Court Clntcrruption) I don't want to hear, if you iruiist that you will be hea;d in behalf of Mr. Francisco. If you want to explain for yourself, all right, but if you want to explain for Mr. Francillco, nothing doing." (pp. 3'167-3'168, t.s.n.) "Atty. Marasigan: I have nothing more to say but I "1ill make of record that I am presenting my evidence. This is a question of law.'' Cp. 3768, t.s.n.>. "Cou1t: All right, this is the order of the court. Let the motion for reconsideP&tion filed by Messrs. Franci!:CO and Marasigan pe heard on the 24th of this month September 1953, at 9:00 A.M." (pp. 3768-3769, t.s.n.> ''Court: That is the order of the court. All right hearing closed. "Atty. Marasigan: All right, Your Honor, I will present evi. dence in support of the ex-parte urgent motion for recon.. sideration. "Court: The order is a1ready issued. CTo COurt Interpreter> Next case, that election case." (pp. 3768-3769, t.s.n,) 4.o En cuanto a la condicion fiaica poi· entonces del recurrente Francisco, consta que el 1.o de septiembre de 1963, o quince dias antes. ·el Ju:i;gado estaba ei;iterado que aqueI "temia" via"ja1· en avion. "Court: There ar, people who are afraid to take the plane as a means of transportation and I am one of them. Mr. Francisco is a,s' old as I am and I want to live longer. - x - - x - - x - "Court: This is one instance wherf! the non-appearance of Atty. Francisco is justified. Nobody can go apinat .the will of God. This typhoon is the act of God, If anybody says: If he did not take the boat, why did he not take the plane? But I w.>ul.d ~ve done the same like him." (p, 3716,t.n.t.) Tambien conata el hecho de que el abogado no podfa hacer viaje algnno debido a au mala aalud en el teleg'l:ama a.rriba tl'anacritO de fecha 16 de septiembre de 1953. Y ello no parece ficticio, porque el Dr. Agorico B. M. Sison, Director del Philippine General Hospital, certified bajo juramento - "x x x that Atty. Vicente J. Francisco is under the medical care of the Wldersigned and baa been advised to avoid sea and air travel because he is extremely susceptible to '~otion Sickness' which Jowers his vitality to such an extent that it provokf'.a Neurocirculatory Asthenia, and may seriously endangei• his health." 5.o Ha.biendo el Hon. Juez rP.currido insistido en la comparecencia. personal de los recurrentes para el 24 de septiembrc, el recu. rrente Fi·ancisco, dirigic'S el siguiente telegrama al Hon, Juez recurrido: "Raised question to Supreme Court whether Atty, Mara.. sigan and myself may be compelled. to appear personally in hearing September twenty four stop Requeating incident be held in abeyance until after Supreme Court reaolna certiorari. Vicente Francisco." y dieho Juez, el 24 del citado mes, ~n haber-sido aun notifies.do del recurso aqui preientado diet& una orden Canexo F> que dice en parte~ "El Juzgado eree que, a menos que haya una orden de la Corte Suprema ordenando a este_ tribunal para que st ab&tenga de seguir ejerciendo sus faeultades en eate incidente, podria. hacer caso omiao o ignorar el contenido de este telegrama; sin embargo, para dar todaa 1a.s oportunidades al Sr. Francisco para poner a prueba Ia legalidad de la orden de fecha 16 de Septienibre \ie 1953, el Juzgado 1'1?suelve conceder la peticion del Sr. Francisco y dispone transferir la cOmparencia de los Sres. Fra.ncisco y Marasigan ante este Juzgado a fin de er.. poner las razonea que tuvieren p(,r que no debe ser declaradoa incUrsos en desacato, hasta que la Corte Suprema reauelva el rcmedio de cortiorart" que segun el Sr. Francisco ha presentado ante diche. Superioridad." En la mis.ma. orden el Hon, Juez recurrido dijo QUe se abatenfa. 'de tomar acci6'n a.lguna en cuanto a la moci&'n de reeonsidernci6'n de la orden de arresto de Joa recurrentes "toda vez que dieha orden ya ha sido suspendida.": y en cuanto a la separacion de los recurrentea eomo &bogados en la cauaa criminal conforme a aua mocionea de fecha '1y18 de septiembre de 1953, autori~la-retirada de Joa mismos como abogados del acusado Rafael Lacson, y cl ultimo adem6s como abogado del acusado Jose Valencia. Tambien por dicha orden pospuso la compa.recencia pe1·sonal de los reeurrentes hasta que fucse l'esuelta pol' esta Corte el presente l'eeurso. El art. 8 de la regla 64 de los Reglamentos dice que "after ch&rge , in writing has bef'.n filed, and an oppor~nity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty x x x may .be punished by contempt." Dice tambien que "nothing in this s~tion shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing process to bring the accused party into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings. " Eata.ndo ya presentada la explicaeio'n requerida, y bajo juramento1 y habiendo ya el recurrente Marasigan comp&l'ecido en persona parn dar las ac]araciones y presentai· laS pruebas 9ue se necesiten, para sf y para el recurrente Francisco, no habia raz6n alguna para. re.. querir todavia la comparecencia personal de 1oa recurrentes para el mismo tramite en Bacolod. en otra fecba. La explieaci&n jurada es, con arreglo a nueatroa reglamentos, prueba prima facie._ <Art. 100, Regla 123;) Caso de falaedad de dicha explicaci6n eserita en algun detaJle material, cabe la acusaeion de perjurio, Ademas,am.bos eon miembros del foro y son responsables de toda conduct& anti.profe. · sional. El recurrente Marasigan, que lo Jw-S de propio conoeimiento, y que era el llamado a asistir en la vista del dia 15 de eeptiembre de 1953 de la causa criminal, ei:a competeDte para dar" personalmente cualquiera explicacion pertinente de la a.a.senciG de los recurrentu en Ia vista del dia 15 de aeptiembre, y se hab{a ofracido a darla, No conata QJle se le haya. dirigido pregunta alguna sobre Ia incompare.. eencia de los recurrentes que eI no podia contestar de su propio co.. nocimiento, o que solo el reeurrente Francisco podia dar eontesta. ciln legabnente admisible. La negativa .de oir la explicacion de Marasiga.n solo porque incluia la de Francisco va contra los preceptos de I& ley. Es indisputable que 41 tenia deret'.ho a aer sido en su propia representacion, entonces y ant miamu. No habia razon alguna para hacerle volver. Ea tambien indisputable que el recurrente Francisco tenia derecho a ser oido ''by himself or counsel," (Regla. 64, art. SJ No habia por el niomento razOn para re. querir au presencj& personal, dejando a un lado au por entoncea delicada salud para hacer viajes. Y est& repetidtmente declarado que se obra cen exceso de juriadiccion cuando se dicta orden sin raz&n. Se arguye que al exigir la comparacencia personal de los rellay 31, 1964 LAWYERS. JOURNAL eurrentes el Bon. Jtiez recurrid.o estaba autorisado Por el ultimo parrafo del art. 3 de la Regla 64 que prov~e que el miamo no se in .. terpretari. de modo que impida al Juzga.do ordenar que el acusado sea traido al Juzgado o de tenerle detenido durante la pendencia del incidente. Se pueden tambien invoca.r al mismo efecto los arts. 5 y 6 de la misma regla. Sin emba.TgO, el arresto de Joa recurrentes e~ abandonado y el argumento es por tanto imn&terial. Entonces todo lo que quedaba del incidente era resolverlo. EN VlRTUD DE LO EXPUESTO, se concede el recurso. La. orden del 24 de septiembre de 1953,. en cuanto requiere a Joa recurren. tes que comparezcan ante el Hon. .Juez recurrido para un tramite Ya hecho, cual es, el de explicar la incamparecencia de loa miamoa en la vista del dla 15 de septiembre de 1963 de la cauaa criminal No. 3220 del Juzgado de Primero Inatancia de Negros Occidental queda anulada. Sin coataa. Asi se ordena. Para.ti, Bengzon, MontemagOT', /"1Jo, Labrador, Pablo, Padil~; Reves and BautistG Angelo, J. J., concU:r. · BAUTISTA ANGELO, I., concm•ring: On SepW-mber 15, 1953, date set for the continuation of the bearing of the case, Attys. Francisco and Marasigan, Who were .appearing for the accused, failed to show up, whereupon respondent J'udge issued an order for their aueat. Informed of this order, Atty. Francisco sent a wire askins for an opportunity to explajn. The order was S11Bpended btat Atty&. Francisco and Marasigan were required to appear personaUv on September 24. Atty. Francisco replied by telegram informing the court that he could not appear on the date .set due to failing health and doctor's advice, but was submitting his explanation through Atty. Marasigan. Atty. Mara.. sigan in effect appeared on the date set but respondent Judge re.. fUsed to hear his explanation if it would include that of Atty. Francisco. A portion of the transcript showing what has taken plaee during the hearing is as follows: "Court: I have told you already that I will not accept any explanation from somebody else but from Mr. Francisco himself. He must oppea.,. he.,.e pe-rsonall'/I. - 1 ' - - J I . - - x - "Atty. Marasigan: x x x If in a criminal action the accused can waive his presence, why cannot Atty. Francisco waive his presence and allow me, instead in the meantime to e."Cplain for him, Your Honor! "Court: I can tell you that a defendant in a criminal case can waive his presence in certain stage in the proceedings but he cannot waive his presence to be arraigned of this informs.tion or charge. He ·mu.st be pnaent he.,.e. He cannot be represented by somebody else. "Attr. Marasigan: But in this case there is no arraignment, Your Honor. As a rule, contempt p1'0Ceeding is initiated by filing a charge in writing with the court. <Section 3, Rule 64.) It baa been held however that the court may motu provrio require a person to answe:r whf he should not be pUnished for contemptuous behavior. Such power is necessary for its own protection against an improper interference with the due administration of justice <In re Quirinor 76 Phil. 630>. The contempt under considel'Btion is a constructive one it having arisen in view of the failure oJ Attys. Francisco and Marasipn to obey an order of the court, and for such failure respondent Judge ordered them to appea.r and show cause why they sho11.ld not be punished for contempt. There was therefore no formal charge filed against them but th~ action was taken directly by the court upon its own initiative. The question that now araies is: Can ~ha. attorneys waive their pet"sonal appea.nime as ordered -by the court? The ru]e on the matter is not clear (Section 3, Rule 64>.. While on one hand it allows a person charged with contempt to appear by himself or by counsel, on the other, the rule contains the following proviso: ''But nothing in this section shaJl be so construed aa to prevent the court from issuing pt'OCf'ss to bring the accused party into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings.'' Apparently. thia is the provision oii. which respondent Judge is now i-elying in insisting on the persona] appearance of Atty. Francisco. I believe, however, that this power can only be tixercised when there a.re good reasons justifying its exercise. The record discloses none. The reason for the appearance is already well known. The contemptuous charge was clP.ar. The only thing required was for Atty. Francisco to explain his conduct. Thia he did in his telegram to the cuurt intimating that his failure to appear was due to !ailing health and doctor's advice, while, on the other hand, he caused Atty. Marasigan to appclar for him and elaborate on his explanation. ThiS attitude, in my opinion, is a substantial compliance with the rule a.nd justifies the action taken by Atty. Francisco. XIV Feli% Fabella and E'THBsto Figuet"oa, Plainti/fa-AppeUeea, vs. Ths Provincial Sheri.fl of Riznl, Vicente D. Alobog, and Alto Surety a.n.d Insurm1ce Co. 111.c,, Defndonts .. AppeUa'fttB, G. R. No L.6090, No11emb&r 27, 1953. l. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; ITS NATURE. - The nature of a judgment on the pleadings maybe found in Section 10, ~ule 36 of the Rules of Court, which provides "where an answer fails to tender an iuue, or otherwise admits the m&terial allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may, on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading, ezcept in actions for annulment of ma1:riage or divorce wherein the material facts alleged in the complaint shall always be proved." The rules contain no other provision on the matter. "Court: Precisely he ia required to be here, to be apprai~ of 2 the charge. IBID; WHO MAY ASK JUDGMENT. ON THE PLEADINGS.Apparently, in this jurisdiction the rul.:= regarding judgment on the pleadings only applies where an answer fails to tender an issue and plaintiff invokes the rule. The rule is silent as to whether a similar relief· may be asked by the defendant, although under American jurisprudence, the rule applies to either party. "Atty. Marasigan: In a criminal charge there is an arraignment but in a contempt proceedings, there is none. 11Court: Why not? That is the reason Why the cnurt wants him to .be present hel't! to ~ apprised of the charges. 1'Atty. Maiasigan: But he is apprised alnadu. As a matter of fact there is no arraignment." The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts and is essential to their right of. ·self-preservation. "The reason for this is that i-espect fo1· the~ ciiurts guarantees, the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty sa.id institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation." (Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724..) This powel" is recognized by our Rules of Court <Rule 64). Under this rule, contempt is divi.ded into two kinds: (l)_ direct contempt, that is, one committed in the presence of, or so near, the Judge AS to obstruct him in the administration of justice; and <2> constructive contempt, or that which is committed out of the presence of the court. as in refusing to obey its order or lawful proceaa. <Narcida v. Bowen, 22 Phil. 366, 871; lso Yick Mon v. Collector of Customs, 41 Phil. 548; Caluag v. Pecson, 46 0. C. <a>, 514.> 3. IBID; CASE ILLUSTRATING THE NATURE AND APPL!. CATION OF THE RULE. - We have in this jurisdiction q11ite a good number of cases illustrating the nature and application of the rule. As a.n illustration and guidance, we may cite the following restatement of the rulings found in different cases decided by this Court: When the defendant neither denies nor admits the material allegation of the complaint, judgment on the pleadings is proper <Alemany, et a1. v. Sweeney, 3 Phil. 114>. But where the defendant's anaWer tenders an issue, judgment on the plea.dings should not be rendered <Ongsin v. Riarte, 46 O. G. No. 1, p. 67). And when the defendant admits all allegations of the complaint, the adniiasion is a sufficient gl'Ound for judgment. One who prays for judgment on the ple~ngs without offering proof as to the truth of h:is own 238 LAWYERS JOURNAL May 31, 1964

pages

235-238