In Re Sotto Case Digest
This is a proceeding for contempt of our court against the respondent Atty. Vicente Sotto, who was required by their Court on December 7, 1948, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt to court for having issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in In re Angel Parazo for contempt of court, which statement, as published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the locality
Facts – In Re Sotto Case Digest
Atty. Vicente Sotto published an opinion criticizing the members of the Supreme Court for their decision on the case of Angel Parazo. He was imprisoned for 30 days for refusing to divulge his source on news published in his newspaper.
Aty. Sotto also said that he will propose to Congress the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. The respondent was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court.
- Arnault vs Nazareno Case Digest
- Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS Case Digest
- Philippine Bar vs COMELEC Case Digest
Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to punish contempt of court
The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of the superior statute. It is a doctrine or principle uniformly accepted and applied by the court of last resort in the United States, which is applicable in this jurisdiction since our Constitution and courts of justice are patterned as expounded in American Jurisprudence.