IN RE: SOTTO

FACTS: Atty. Vicente Sotto (kaano ano kaya sya ni Vic Sotto?) was ordered by the
Court to show cause why he shouldnt be held in contempt of court in his
statement published in Manila imes in connection with the decision of the
Supreme Court in !n "e #ara$o. !n that statement% Sotto said that the SC
erroneously interpreted the #ress &reedom 'aw (which is authored by Sotto
himself) in applysin( such law in #ara$o case. &urthermore% he said that such
decision pro)ed that incompetency and narrow*mindedness of the SC. +e also
threatened to reor(ani$ed the membership of the SC in the ne,t session of the
Con(ress. Also% he said that in the recent years% the SC has committed so many
blunders and in-ustices deliberately done. !n the course of the proceedin(% Sotto
mainly contended that the SC has no power to impose correctional penalties% and
that the SC can only impose .nes and punishments by )irtues of a law. +e
likewise in)oked (ood faith as a defense when he made such statement.
ISSUE:
/. w0n the SC can punish him for contempt of court1
2. w0n his defense of (ood faith e,onerates him from the contempt char(e.
HELD: 3o to both. he power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of
(eneral -urisdiction independently of any special e,pression of statute. !t is an
essential element of -udicial authority. !n !n "e 4elly% the court said that the
publication of a criticism of the court to a pendin( case has always been
considered as misbeha)ior tendin( to obstruct the administration of -ustice%
sub-ects such person to contempt proceedin(. Mere criticism or comment of the
correctness or wron(ness% soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court
in a pendin( case made in (ood faith may be tolerated since it mi(ht enli(hten
the Court and contribute to correction of the error committed. +owe)er% in this
case% Sotto did not only critici$e the decision of the Court. +e e)en intimidated the
Court to chan(e its members% and reor(ani$ed it. Sotto attacked the honesty and
inte(rity of the Court especially when he said that the SC has committed in the
past few years for many blunders and in-ustices. !t tends to undermine the
con.dence of the peoplt in the inte(rity of the Court.
+is defense of (ood faith is not con)incin( because in his petitione he e)en
alle(ed that the principal promoter of this contempt proceedin( was 5ustice
#erfecto% con)eyin( the idea that the SC only acted in the case throu(h the
insti(ation of 5ustice #erfecto. his Court added that as important as the freedom
of the press is the maintenance of the independence of the -udiciary. he court
must be permitted to proceed with its business without the obstruction from
outside.
6esides% as a lawyer% and thus% an o7cer of court% Sotto is under special obli(ation
to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts
!n )iew of the fore(oin(% Sotto was found (uilty of contempt by )irtue of such
publication in Manila imes.