G.R. No.

L-3820             July 18, 1950

JEAN L. ARNAULT, Petitioner, v.
LEON NAZARENO, Sergeant-at-arms, Philippine Senate, and EUSTAQUIO
BALAGTAS, Director of Prisons, Respondents.

Facts:
On the latter part of October, 1949, the Philippine Government, through the Rural
Progress Administration, bought two estates known as Buenavista and Tambobong
for the sums of P4,500,000 and P500,00, respectively. Of the first sum, P1,000,000
was paid to Ernest H. Burt, a nonresident American, thru his attorney-in-fact in the
Philippines, the Associated Estates, Inc., represented Jean L. Arnault (Petitioner), for
alleged interest of the said Burt in the Buenavista Estate. The second sum of
P500,000 was all paid to the same Ernest H. Burt through his other attorney-in-fact,
the North Manila Development Co., Inc., also represented by Jean L. Arnault, for the
alleged interest of the said Burt in the Tambobong Estate.

On February 27, 1950, the Senate adopted its Resolution No. 8, the special
committee created by the said resolution called and examined various witnesses,
among the most important of whom was the herein petitioner. An intriguing question
which the committee sought to resolve was that involved in the apparent
unnecessariness and irregularity of the Government’s paying to Burt the sum of
P1,500,000 for his alleged interest of only P20,000 in the two estates, which he
seemed to have forfeited anyway long before October 1949. The committee sought
to determine who were responsible for and who benefited from the transaction at the
expense of the Government.

Petitioner testified that two checks payable to Burt aggregating P1,500,00 were
delivered to him on the afternoon of October 29, 1949;  that on the same date he
opened a new account in the name of Ernest H. Burt with the Philippine National
Bank in which he deposited the two checks aggregating P1,500,000; and that on the
same occasion he draw on said account two checks; one for P500,000, which he
transferred to the account of the Associated Agencies, Inc., with the Philippine
National Bank, and another for P440,000 payable to cash, which he himself cashed.
It was the desire of the committee to determine the ultimate recipient of this sum of
P440,000 that gave rise to the present case.

Issue: 
WON the Senate has the authority to commit and imprison petitioner for contempt for
a term beyond its period of legislative session?

Ruling:
Yes, the Senate, which is a continuing body and which does not cease exist upon the
periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives. There is
no limit as to time to the Senate’s power to punish for contempt in cases where that
power may constitutionally be exerted as in the present case.

From all the foregoing, it follows that the petition must be denied, and it is so ordered,
with costs.