Austria vs. Hon. Masaquel Doctrinal Digest

Domingo Austria vs. Hon. Antonio C. Masaquel G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967 Doctrinal Digest: It is not an act of willful disregard and disobedience to the court which constitutes direct contempt when a plaintiff requests his counsel to approach respondent Judge in his chamber and suggest to him to refrain from hearing the case on the new trial on the belief that the latter is impartial because the adverse party’s lawyer was once the Judge’s associate in court. Story Line: Box 1: (Scene –Judge Masaquel decided that the land subject if the case belongs to the plaintif, the latter immediately filed a motion for execution of judgment and prayed they hold possession of the land.) Judge Masaquel: This court after appreciation of the facts and pieces of evidence presented by the parties renders that the land subject of this case belongs to Domingo Austria, the plaintiff.) Counsel for Austria: Your Honor, may we move for the immediate execution of the judgment and we pray that my client be given the possession of the land. Judge Masaquel: Granted! Box 2: (Scene –  Atty. Mariano Sicat, a previous associate of Judge Masaquel entered as new counsel of the defendant.) Atty. Sicat: Your Honor, I am appearing as new counsel for the defendants. My client wants to stay the execution of the judgment, we will file a supersedeas bond to stay the execution. Judge Masaquel: Granted counsel!

Box 3: (Scene- Pedro Bravo, the defendant in the civil case, boasts to his neighbors that with his new lawyer he will surely win the case. This was overheard by Domingo Austria.) Pedro Bravo: Oh ano mga kapitbahay! Sa bago kong abogado siguradong sa akin mapupunta yang lupa na yan! Malakas ang kapit eh! Domingo Austria: I smell something fishy! Sabi ko na eh, yung bagong abogado nyan may kapit dun sa judge. Box 4: (Scene –Mr. Austria asks his counsel to talk with Judge Masaquel in his chamber and request that he inhibit from further hearing the case. Judge was offended and cited Mr. Austria in direct contempt.) 1st Scene: Counsel for Mr. Austria: Your Honor, my apologies but my client is requesting that you inhibit yourself from further hearing this case. Judge Masaquel: What?! Mamaya sa courtroom tatanungin ko yang client mo kung anong pumasok sa isip niya bakit niya ko pinag-iinhibit! 2nd Scene: Judge Masaquel: Mr. Austria, why did you ask your counsel to request me to inhibit from further hearing this case? What are your grounds? Mr. Austria: Your Honor, it appears that you and the new counsel for the defendant have some professional relationship and I think that prevents you from being impartial in hearing this case. Judge Masaquel: Really? Well your intuition is not one of the grounds for my inhibition. This offends me as a judge and my integrity. I will cite you in direct contempt! Box 5: (Scene – Mr. Austria files a petition for certiorari with the SC questioning the validity of the order citing him in direct contempt.) Counsel for Mr. Austria: Your Honor, we are filing a petition for certiorari questioning the validity of the order citing my client in direct contempt. SC Justice: This petition is meritorious. It is not an act of willful disregard and disobedience to the court which constitutes direct contempt when a

plaintiff requests his counsel to approach respondent Judge in his chamber and suggest to him to refrain from hearing the case on the new trial on the belief that the latter is impartial because the adverse party’s lawyer was once the Judge’s associate in court.