This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-26 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| degrade the administration of justice would constitute indirect contempt.[51] The indirect contempt charges in this case involve an invocation of paragraphs b, c, and d, Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court which read as follows: Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a | |||||
|
2011-03-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a public servant, a judge should perform his duties in accordance with the dictates of his conscience and the light that God has given him. A judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his duties. He should always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise.[10] | |||||