In re: Sotto

January 21, 1949

Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why he
should not be punished for contempt in connection with his
written statement of the Supreme Court's decision in the matter of
Angel Parazo's case, which was published in Manila Times and in
other newspapers in the locality.
justices.
Respondent has not presented any evidence or offered any to
support his slanderous imputations, and no single word can be found
in his answer showing that he ever believed that the imputations are
based on fact.

Sotto was given ten days more besides the five originally It is also well settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is
given him to file his answer, and although his answer was filed under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and
after the expiration of the period of time given him the said answer communication to the courts, he may be removed from office or
was admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the statement stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant
as it has been published. He however, contends that under section misconduct.
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon this
Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure, the Supreme Court has has no
power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and it
can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and
has to be promulgated by Congress with the approval of the Chief
Executive. He also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the respondent
made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and
with no intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable
members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously
decided the Parazo case; but he has not attacked, or intended to
attack the honesty or integrity of any one.”

Issue: Whether or not Sotto is guilty of contempt.

HELD:

The Court finds that the respondent Sotto knowingly published

false imputations against its members. He accused them of such
depravity as to have committed "blunders and injustices
deliberately." He has maliciously branded them to be
incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of evil, "a constant
peril to liberty and democracy," to be the opposite of those who
were the honor and glory of the Philippines judiciary, to be
needing a lesson in law, to be rendering an intolerable
sentence, to be needing replacement by better qualified