This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| For a comment to be considered as contempt of court "it must really appear" that such does impede, interfere with and embarrass the administration of justice.[7] What is, thus, sought to be protected is the all-important duty of the court to administer justice in the decision of a pending case.[8] The specific rationale for the sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.[9] | |||||