Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 138 views

    Lozano V Quevedo

    Uploaded by

    Mikko
    The newspaper El Pueblo published an article written by Anastacio Quevedo about a secret investigation being conducted by the Solicitor-General into allegations against a Judge of First Instance. The complainant attorney alleged the article contained false and malicious facts that took sides with the respondent judge and was intended to influence the investigation. The court found Severino Lozano, the editor of El Pueblo, and Anastacio Quevedo guilty of contempt of court because publishing details of confidential legal proceedings can impede and embarrass the administration of justice. The court ordered each to pay a nominal fine of 20 pesos within 15 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lozano V Quevedo

    Uploaded by

    Mikko
    138 views1 page
    The newspaper El Pueblo published an article written by Anastacio Quevedo about a secret investigation being conducted by the Solicitor-General into allegations against a Judge of First Instance. The complainant attorney alleged the article contained false and malicious facts that took sides with the respondent judge and was intended to influence the investigation. The court found Severino Lozano, the editor of El Pueblo, and Anastacio Quevedo guilty of contempt of court because publishing details of confidential legal proceedings can impede and embarrass the administration of justice. The court ordered each to pay a nominal fine of 20 pesos within 15 days.

    Original Description:

    Case digests

    Original Title

    Lozano v Quevedo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The newspaper El Pueblo published an article written by Anastacio Quevedo about a secret investigation being conducted by the Solicitor-General into allegations against a Judge of First Instance. The complainant attorney alleged the article contained false and malicious facts that took sides with the respondent judge and was intended to influence the investigation. The court found Severino Lozano, the editor of El Pueblo, and Anastacio Quevedo guilty of contempt of court because publishing details of confidential legal proceedings can impede and embarrass the administration of justice. The court ordered each to pay a nominal fine of 20 pesos within 15 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    138 views1 page

    Lozano V Quevedo

    Uploaded by

    Mikko
    The newspaper El Pueblo published an article written by Anastacio Quevedo about a secret investigation being conducted by the Solicitor-General into allegations against a Judge of First Instance. The complainant attorney alleged the article contained false and malicious facts that took sides with the respondent judge and was intended to influence the investigation. The court found Severino Lozano, the editor of El Pueblo, and Anastacio Quevedo guilty of contempt of court because publishing details of confidential legal proceedings can impede and embarrass the administration of justice. The court ordered each to pay a nominal fine of 20 pesos within 15 days.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    In Re Lozano [54 Phil. 801.

    July 24, 1930]


    16OCT
    Ponente: MALCOLM, J.
    FACTS:
    Sometime ago, the complaint of an attorney against a Judge of First Instance was by resolution of this
    court referred to the Attorney-General for investigation, report, and recommendation. The SolicitorGeneral was designated to conduct the investigation of the charges, and pursuant to said designation,
    proceeded to the municipality of Capiz, Province of Capiz, to take the testimony of certain witnesses. The
    investigation was conducted secretly, as is customary in cases of this character. Notwithstanding, on April
    29, 1930, El Pueblo, a newspaper published in Iloilo and edited by Severino Lozano, printed an account
    of the investigation written by Anastacio Quevedo, said to be an employee in the office of the Judge under
    investigation.
    The article purports to give an account of the evidence of the different witnesses. Regarding this account,
    the complainant attorney alleges that the facts therein contained are false, malicious, and untrue and
    that said report took sides with the respondent judge . . . and expressed an opinion as to the merits of the
    same, with the object undoubtedly, to influence the action of the investigator and the public in general and
    to obstruct, embarrass or impede the course of the present investigation. In the same connection, the
    Attorney-General states that the newspaper report does not contain a fair and true account of the facts
    disclosed at the investigation, . . . creating a wrong impression in the mind of the public and tending to
    influence improperly the action of this court in the said pending matter. Under the circumstances, the
    observations of the Attorney-General must necessarily be accepted as true.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Severino Lozano and Anastacio Quevedo are guilty of contempt of court.
    HELD:
    YES. Court ordered each to pay the court a nominal sum of twenty pesos (P20) within fifteen (15) days.
    RATIO:
    The rule is well established that the newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarass, or
    influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal contempt
    which is summarily punishable by the courts. The rule is otherwise after the cause is ended. It is also
    regarded as an interference with the work of the courts to publish any matters which their policy requires
    should be kept private, as for example the secrets of the jury room, or proceedings in camera.
    The liberty of the citizen must be preserved in all of its completeness. But license or abuse of liberty of the
    press and of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true sense. As important as is the
    maintenance of the Judiciary. Respect for the Judiciary cannot be had if persons are privileged to scorn a
    resolution of the court adopted for good purposes, and if such persons are to be permitted by
    subterranean means of diffuse inaccurate accounts of confidential proceedings to the embarrassment of
    the parties and the courts

    You might also like