You are on page 1of 3

Tiongco v. Aguilar is not without limits.

Such freedom of speech and
240 SCRA 589 (1995) of expression in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution must be exercised responsibly. As
Facts: one who is aware of the responsibilities of being
in the legal profession, he exceeded the bounds
After of decency in putting forth his criticism when he
After respondent judge ruled against petitioners falsely and maliciously insinuated against the
Atty. Tiongco and his wife’s case for recovery of Court, particularly the Members of the First
possession and damages, petitioner was charged Division, and the obvious scurrilous
for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional characterizations of the respondent judge.
Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
respondent Judge as “having been crafted in Because of his anger for the unfavorable court
order to fool the winning party”; as a decision, he used unnecessary, offensive and
“hypocritical judgment in plaintiff’s favour”; one abrasive language is totally uncalled for and
with “perfidious character;” and one which "you jeopardizes the high esteem in courts while
could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated undermining the confidence of the people in the
it". integrity of the members of the Court.
Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000
Tiongco described respondent Judge as a liar, plus warning.
perjurer or blasphemer. He also called the
respondent judge a "robber," "rotten
manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption,
Sanggalang vs IAC
and "cross-eyed."
177 SCRA 87
Facts: After the court ruled against his clients in
Is Tiongco’s act of criticizing the Judge’s
the case, Att. Sangco filed a motion for
judgment a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
reconsideration which became grounds for
Professional Responsibility?
charges for contempt against the latter due to
his disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for
remarks and for suggesting that the Court might
Yes. Tiongco’s criticism of the Judge’s
have been guilty of graft and corruption. In the
judgment violated Canon 11 of the Code of
same motion, he questioned the Court's
Professional Responsibility, as well as the
competence and integrity and raised its manifest
lawyer’s oath and Rules of court.
partiality towards the opposing party.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility states that “a lawyer shall observe
Are the actuations of Atty. Sancgo proper
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
grounds for contempt?
to judicial matters, and should insist on similar
conduct by others”
Yes, the acts of Atty. Sangco are punishable
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
under Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court
entwined with his vow in the lawyer’s oath “to
treating Direct contempt.
conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity
to the courts,” and his duty under Section 20(b)
Using intemperate and accusatory language
of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court “to observe and
against the court by a lawyer, who is likewise an
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
officer of the court, should not go unpunished.
and judicial officers.”
His suggestions that the Court might be guilty of
graft and corruption is not only unbecoming , but
It does not, however, follow that just because a
comes as an open assault to the Court’s honor
lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot
and integrity, who upon rendering its judgment
criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen,
only yielded to records alone and not to outside
and it is even his duty as an officer of the court
influences. Being a former judge Atty Sangco
to avail of such right. Nevertheless, such a right

and are that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous. service for 17 months. petitioner Maceda knew that no Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 Governor-General Wood who was a friend of criminal cases that have been submitted for Cailles.00. Atty Sangco is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months and ORDERED to pay a >>> fine of P 500. 102781) Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed In re: Gomez a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman 43 Phil 376 against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. No. it believes that like any other right. Respondent Abiera alleged that newspaper and likewise substantiated by four petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of affidavits. Atty. A publication in or outside of court malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 tending to impede.” The rule under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious in the more progressive jurisdictions is. Maceda vs. though without further action. states that A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND destroy public confidence in them or bring them MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS in any way into disrepute. that act. In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his . which influence the courts in administering justice. Feliciano Gomez lost an election service by certifying that all civil and criminal protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed cases which have been submitted for decision for by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme a period of 90 days have been determined and Court. Rule 11. Such publication or intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the As well as of Rule 11.R.04 dictating lawyer’s duty to respect the courts. before the Courts.05 of offensive or menacing language or behavior the code of professional responsibility. are subject to the same criticism as other people. 1989.04 and 11. embarrass or of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thereafter. the right of a lawyer to comment on or criticize the decision of a judge or his actuation is not Apart from such. ISSUE: Issue: Whether or not the action of the Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt? respondent is filed in the proper venue? HELD: Held: No. of fair comment. Said statements were published in a decision.could have demonstrated due empathy to the Despite that. criminal complaint against the judge arises from his administrative duties should be filed in The Supreme Court ruled that “litigants and the Supreme Court. obstruct. No. and not to attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or Thus records of the said reports were attached to have no materiality to the case. The Supreme Court decided not hold Gomez for contempt. because of dissatisfaction at losing administratively liable to the SC for serious cases. violative of Canon 11. Respondent Abiera alleged that Facts: petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of In 1921. his act also constitutes unlimited. transcends the limits AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. when a case is finished.03 and Rule 11. when in celebration Gomez remarked that the Supreme truth and in fact. and that the big way is for the court to misconduct and criminally liable to the State condone even contemptuous language. Vasquez (G. courts in rendering judgments. courts. the personal record of Atty Gomez. lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is moment. at a public meeting at a fiesta decided on or before January 31.

allowing the same would be a violation of his right to be informed of the cause and nature of Art. Four years after his six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) arraignment. Medicare would adversely affect his rights. the investigation being change the material dates stated in the conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into Information which the Petitioner opposed stating the Court’s power of administrative supervision the over all courts and its personnel. Gabionza vs CA The allegation of time when an offense is G. By virtue of this power. and is not a material ingredient of the offense. (e). March 30. it is clear that the questioned >> amendment is one of form and not of substance. judge arises from his administrative duties. (a) and (d).R.(b) it does not filed in the SC through OCA (office of Court affect or alter the nature of the offense originally Adminsitrator) if case is administrative in nature. Sec. in violation of amendment was substantial in nature. ruling branch of government may intrude into this that the amendment pertained only to matters of power. it is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court Ruling: personnel’s compliance with all laws. VIII. without running afoul of the doctrine of form. not in the Ombudsman. Facts: petitioner's argument that the amendment Petitioner Gabionza was accused for violating prejudiced his rights is untenable. vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel. the accused to undergo any material change or But criminal complaints against Judges in modification in his defense.(d) it does not expose connection with their duties should be lodged in the accused to a charge which would call for a the SC. pars. and thus should be rightful for the Ombudsman to This is to ensure speedy and efficient defer action and refer the same to the SC for administration of Justice in accordance with determination whether said judge or court Canon 12 of the code of professional employee had acted within the scope of their responsibility. 22. for Leave of Court to Amend Information. 140311. and the doctrine of separation of powers. charged (c) it does not involve a change in the and to the Office of Ombudsman if complaint is basic theory of the prosecution so as to require criminal and not purely administrative in nature. so long as: (a) it does not deprive the accused of Complaints against Judges and Justices should be the right to invoke prescription. to . The RTC granted the motion and they commit any violation thereof. administrative duties. It is not even necessary to state in the separation of powers. the public prosecutor filed a Motion years. Sec. and take No. In fact. In the case at bar. Respondent's act is violative of Rule 11. par. the and Employee Compensation (EC) and its penalty imposed for this violation is constant at corresponding penatly.certificates of service. No other allowed amendment of the Information.and. in relation to Sec. from the Presiding Issue: Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal Is the contention of Gabionza meritorious? trial court clerk.05 stating that a lawyer shall submit grievances Jurisprudence allows amendments to information against a Judge to the proper authorities only. higher penalty. Thus. the contention of Gabionza is not the proper administrative action against them if meritorious. 2001 committed is a matter of form. 28. Information the precise time the offense was committed. 6 of the Constitution exclusively the accusation against him. (5) it does not cause surprise nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to In this case. regardless of the number of infractions. of RA 1161 for willfully' unlawfully failing Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in and refusing to remit to the Social Security support of his allegation that the amendment System (SSS) contributions for SSS. the criminal complaint against the meet the new averment.