G.R No.

L-68635,May 14,1987
IN
THE
MATTER
OF
PROCEEDINGS
FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. WENCESLAO
LAURETA, AND OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA
MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE IN G.R. NO. 68635, ENTITLED "EVA
MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE,
VS.
HON.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET AL."
Nature of the Action
This case was a motion for reconsideration of the Per Curiam
Resolution of the Supreme Court promulgated on March 12, 1987,
finding Atty. Wenceslao Laureta guilty of grave professional misconduct
and suspending him indefinitely from the practice of law and holding
Eva-Maravilla-Illustre in contempt proceeding.
Material Facts
Before the Supreme Court made its judgment on March 12, 1987,
Atty.Laureta and Mrs.Illustre were informed by the Court in its showcause Resolution dated in Januray 29,1987, to explain that they should
not be charged or penalized for their acts which insulted the Court
In response to the show-cause Resolution both of them submitted
an Answer to the Court to explain such.
However, the Court, after deliberation of such answers decided to
punish them for the said acts committed by both as stated in the decision
it made in March 12, 1987.
The petitioners argued that they were not given due process of law
because they were not given an opportunity to be heard through a trial
proceeding
Issue
Are the petitioners deprived of the due process of law because no
trial proceeding was instituted to defend themselves from such
charges?

Ruling
Accordingly, the respective Motions for reconsideration of Atty.
Wenceslao G.Laureta for thesetting aside of the order suspending him
from the practice of law and of Eva-Maravilla Ilustre for the lifting of the
penalty for contempt are DENIED and this denial is FINAL.
Ratio Decidendi
No, Atty.Laureta and Eva-Maravilla Illustre were not deprived of
due process of law because the lack of opportunity to be heard does not
necessarily connote the lack of opportunity of a trial proceeding. The fact
that S.C informed them to submit an answer to defend themselves for the
commission of acts which insulted the Court and made judgment thereof
after the deliberation of their answers constituted acts of providing an
opportunity to be heard and of hearing the petitioners answer,
respectively.