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 Times in connection with the decision of the
Supreme Court in In Re Parazo. In that statement, Sotto said that the SC
erroneously interpreted the Press Freedom Law (which is authored by Sotto
himself) in applysing such law in Parazo case. Furthermore, he said that such
decision proved that incompetency and narrow-mindedness of the SC. He also
threatened to reorganized the membership of the SC in the next session of the
Congress. Also, he said that in the recent years, the SC has committed so many
blunders and injustices deliberately done. In the course of the proceeding, Sotto
mainly contended that the SC has no power to impose correctional penalties, and
that the SC can only impose fines and punishments by virtues of a law. He
likewise invoked good faith as a defense when he made such statement.
ISSUE:
1. w/n the SC can punish him for contempt of court;
2. w/n his defense of good faith exonerates him from the contempt charge.
HELD: No to both. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of
general jurisdiction independently of any special expression of statute. It is an
essential element of judicial authority. In In Re Kelly, the court said that the
publication of a criticism of the court to a pending case has always been
considered as misbehavior tending to obstruct the administration of justice,
subjects such person to contempt proceeding. Mere criticism or comment of the
correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court
in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated since it might enlighten
the Court and contribute to correction of the error committed. However, in this
case, Sotto did not only criticize the decision of the Court. He even intimidated the
Court to change its members, and reorganized it. Sotto attacked the honesty and
integrity of the Court especially when he said that the SC has committed in the
past few years for many blunders and injustices. It tends to undermine the
confidence of the peoplt in the integrity of the Court.
His defense of good faith is not convincing because in his petitione he even
alleged that the principal promoter of this contempt proceeding was Justice
Perfecto, conveying the idea that the SC only acted in the case through the
instigation of Justice Perfecto. This Court added that as important as the freedom
of the press is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. The court
must be permitted to proceed with its business without the obstruction from
outside.
Besides, as a lawyer, and thus, an officer of court, Sotto is under special obligation
to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the courts
In view of the foregoing, Sotto was found guilty of contempt by virtue of such
publication in Manila Times.