Austria vs.

Masaquel

FACTS
Austria was the plaintiff in a civil case involving 3 parcels of land in Pangasinan.
Judge Masaquel decided that the land subject of the case belongs to the plaintiff, the
counsel of Austria immediately filed a motion for execution of judgment and prayed they
hold possession of the land. Atty. Mariano Sicat, a previous associate of Judge Masaquel
entered as new counsel of the defendant. 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. Mr. Austria asked his counsel to talk with Judge Masaquel
in his chambers and request that he inhibit from further hearing the case. The judge was
offended and cited Mr. Austria in direct contempt.
ISSUE
Is the order citing Mr. Austria in direct contempt valid?
RULING
No. while the court considers it improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge, it
is not an act of contempt of court to see the judge in his chambers and requested him to
disqualify himself on the ground which the respondent might consider just and valid. The
judge did not specify the reason of the direct contempt of court. The petitioner has not
misbehaved in court or in the presence of the respondent judge so as to obstruct or
interrupt the proceedings. The power to punish for contempt, being drastic and
extraordinary in the nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of
justice.
The order of direct contempt is set aside.