Cornejo v Tan

Facts: In civil case No. 483 entitled "Cariño vs. Acacio" Atty. Cornejo was (allegedly) asked by
Acacio to act as their counsel, but Atty Cornejo requested Atty. Palacol to handle it. During the case,
Cornejo was presented as a witness. When Atty Palacol was asking questions, the opposing
counsel was always objecting, and judge Tan, the respondent in this case, kept on sustaining almost
every objection. Cornejo then went to the attorney’s table, and wanted to say things as a counsel,
that he wasn’t able to do so as a witness. Judge Tan said that he couldn't appear, because there is
already a lawyer designated to represent Acaico and there was no substitution of counsel that was
appointed.

Atty Cornejo submitted a memorandum to the Secretary of Justice, the SC, and the office of the
President of the Senate, stating the “unjust, hostile, vindictive, and dangerous attitude of the judge”

The Defendant judge then rejected the accusation. He told Cornejo to prove why he shouldn't be
punished with four counts of contempt (for appearing in court without being a party or attorney of the
said case, for using offensive language, misbehavior and for publishing his memorandum before it
was submitted and decided by the court.)

Coronejo claimed that he would not be treated fairly because the charges of contemption was made
by Tan. He also averred that the judge should allow him as counsel for defendants in civil case no
483, to let him present evidence and stop availing for contempt of court.

On june 7, 1948, Tan was required to answer within 10 days. However, on june 5, 1948, Tan already
decided civil case no 483. On june 4, 1948, he declared Cornejo guilty of contempt. Also on that
same day, cornejo filed an appeal but Tan denied it on the ground that there is no appeal in the
matter of direct contempts.

Issue: WON the judgment for contempt be reviewed and revoked.

Held: it is settled that no appeal lies from an order of a superior court declaring a person in direct
contempt. Tan held that it was direct contempt because 1) Cornejo was not an attorney in the case
2) Cornejo used offensive language in the court 3) the memorandum Cornejo passed was published
before it was submitted and decided by the court.

Memorandum contains: It is further respectfully prayed that this memorandum be taken for a protest
against what he believes to be unjust, hostile, vindictive and dangerous attitude or conduct of the
presiding Judge, Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, of this Honorable Court in a democratic government where
laws shall reign supreme unless the same Judge wants to sabotage the present administration of the
President who is seeking the restoration of public peace and order and the faith of the people in our
Government.

It is a strong language. It was insulting on the part of Tan. In Salcedo vs. Hernandez, it was held:

It is right that when an attorney is defending the cause and rights of his client, should do in all his
capacity in which he is capable to win the case but should never resort to intimidation or to act with
no respect and dignity in which the courts require. The reason why respect is needed is because to
ensure the stability of the institution.

Also the action of Cornejo in which he states in his memorandum “the Honorable, the secretary of
justice etc” could be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate the court in the exercise of its judicial
functions.

Therefore, the petition is denied.