People v. De Luna
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Several individuals, who had failed the bar examinations from 1946 to 1952, took their oath as lawyers before a notary public on December 22, 1954, purportedly under Republic Act No. 972 (Bar Flunkers Act of 1953). They were aware that portions of this Act were declared unconstitutional and that their petitions for admission to the bar had been denied by a Supreme Court Resolution on March 18, 1954. Procedural History: The prosecution filed amended informations charging these individuals with contempt of court. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed these cases, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction because the alleged contemptuous acts were committed against the Supreme Court, not the Court of First Instance. The court also found that the mere act of taking an oath before a notary public did not constitute contempt or the practice of law. The Petition: The prosecution appealed the dismissal orders, arguing that the lower court erred in finding a lack of jurisdiction and in concluding that no contempt was committed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try and punish acts constituting contempt of the Supreme Court. Whether the act of taking an oath as a lawyer before a notary public, by individuals who failed the bar examinations and were aware of the Supreme Court's denial of their petitions, constitutes contempt of court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal, holding that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction and that the acts charged constitute contempt of court. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance: The Court held that the provision in the Rules of Court regarding contempt against a superior court is permissive, not exclusive. While the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish contempt against itself, Congress has the power to define and apportion the jurisdiction of courts. Section 44 of the Revised Judiciary Act of 1948 grants Courts of First Instance original jurisdiction over criminal cases where the penalty is imprisonment for more than six months or a fine of more than P2,000. Since the contempt under consideration could be punished by a fine not exceeding P1,000, the Court of First Instance has concurrent jurisdiction. Furthermore, the amended informations alleged acts that tended to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice in all courts, including the Court of First Instance of Manila, thus providing a basis for its jurisdiction. On whether the acts constitute contempt of court: The Court found that the appellees' act of taking the oath as lawyers before a notary public, knowing they had failed the bar and that their petitions were denied by the Supreme Court, constituted disobedience to the implied order in the Supreme Court's resolution denying their admission. This act, coupled with their manifestation that they would practice law in all courts of the Philippines, was deemed an assertion of a right they did not possess and an act of defiance against the Supreme Court's authority. Such conduct was considered improper and tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice, falling under the definition of contempt of court as provided in Section 232 of Act No. 190 and Section 3(b) of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. The Court clarified that assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority is one way contempt can be committed, and by taking the oath and notifying the Court of their intent to practice, the appellees had, for all intents and purposes, held themselves out as attorneys-at-law.
Main Doctrine
The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try and punish acts constituting contempt of court, even if the contemptuous acts were committed against the Supreme Court, provided that such acts also tend to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice in all courts, including the Court of First Instance, and the penalty prescribed falls within the original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.