Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7058. March 20, 1954. ]

VICENTE J. FRANCISCO y FRANCISCO V. MARASIGAN, recurrentes, contra HONORABLE EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ, Juez del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Negros Occidental, recurrido.

Sres. Vicente J. Francisco y Francisco V. Marasigan en su propia representacion.

D. Eduardo P. Arboleda en representacion del recurrido.


SYLLABUS


1. CONTEMPT OF COURT; FAILURE OF AN ATTORNEY TO APPEAR AT THE TRIAL OF THE CASE; EXPLANATION FOR SUCH FAILURE; CASE AT BAR. — Attorney F had a criminal case instituted in Negros Occidental. On the day when the trial of the case was to be resumed in Bacolod both lawyers did not appear. Judge 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 attend at the trial was fully justified. Judge Enriquez refused to listen to Attorney M’s explanation because he wanted Attorney F to appear personally and to be the one to explain why he did not appear on the said date. Held: The order is without reason and the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — After the required explanation had been presented under oath, and after Atty. M had appeared in person to give the explanation and had submitted the required evidence, for him and in behalf of Atty. F, there was no reason to require the further personal appearance of the petitioner for the same purpose in Bacolod on some other date. The sworn explanation is according to our rules, prima facie evidence (Sec. 100, Rule 123).

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — Atty. M who had sworn that the facts stated in the explanation are of his personal knowledge, and who was the one called upon to attend the Criminal Case of the 15th day of September, 1953, was a competent person to give a pertinent explanation of the absence of the petitioner on the date of trial on September 15, and he actually offered to give such explanation. It does not appear that there was any question asked of him about the non-appearance of the petitioner which he could not answer by his own knowledge and about which only Atty. F could give legally admissable answer.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; — The denial to hear Atty. M’s explanation only because it includes Atty. F’s explanation, 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 reason 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 require his personal appearance, even laying aside his delicate state of health at the time which was an impediment for him to travel.


D E C I S I O N


DIOKNO, J.:


La cuestion en este recurso ha quedado reducida a la de si el Honorable Juez recurrido incurrio en exceso de jurisdiccio n al insistir en su orden de que los recurrentes comparezcan personalmente ante el en la ciudad de Bacolod para que expongan las razones por que no se les debe imponer accio n disciplinaria por no haber comparecido el dia 15 de septiembre de 1953 para la continuacio n de la vista de la causa criminal No. 3220 del Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Negros Occidental, intitulado Pueblo contra Lacson y otros, por asesinato.

Los hechos pertinentes, brevemente expuestos, son los siguientes:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Los recurrentes, Francisco y Marasigan, eran los abogados del acusado Rafael Lacson. El primero era el abogado principal y el abogado principal y el segundo el auxiliar, que en ausencia del primero actuaria y actuo , en efecto, en su lugar. Marasigan era ademas abogado de otro acusado en la causa. El 15 de septiembre de 1953 estaba señalada la continuacio n de la vista de la causa criminal, y ninguno de los recurrentes comparecieron, ni enviaron oportuna explicacio n de su ausencia. El acusado Lacson estaba presente, pero se limito a informar que el recurrente Francisco le habia dicho que e l personalmente no asistiria en la vista sino el recurrente Marasigan. Con motivo de la ausencia de ambos abogados, la vista hubo de transferirse para otro dia.

2.
Top of Page