Seeing the Judge in Chamber

1. Austria v Masquil

Facts:

Asturia was the plaintiff in a civil case involving 3 parcels of land in Pangajsinan in which
Judge Masaquel ruled in his favor. Sometime later the defendant in the civil case hired a
new lawyer in the person of Atty. Sicat, a former associate of Judge Masaquel when he was
still in the practice of law.

Atty. Sicat then filed a superdeas bond to stay the execution of the sheriff and a motion for
new trial, all of which was granted by Judge Masaquel. Before the opening of one of the
court sessions, Atty Macaraeg, lawyer of Asturia saw Judge Masaquel to his chamber and
verbally transmitted to him the request that he inhibit himself on the ground that Atty. Sicat
was his associate.

The Judge denied the request pointing out that it was not one of the grounds for
disqualification of a judge as provided in the rules of court. During the court session, he
asked Asturia if he had authorized Atty. Macaraeg to approach him in his chambers and
whether he doubts the integrity of the judge to decide fairly and impartially because the
lawyer of the defending party was his associate, Asturia answered them all in the positive
stating that he heard rumors that the defendant was boasting that he would definitely win
because of his lawyer.

The Judge then declared Asturia in contempt. The Judge considered his actuations offensive,
insulting and lack of respect to the court. He was ordered to pay 50 pesos. Hence this
appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not it was proper for the judge to declare Asturia to be in contempt of
court.

HELD

NO. While the court consider it improper for a litigant or counsel to see a judge in chambers
and talk to him about a matter related to the case pending in the court of said judge, it is
not an act of contempt of court to see the judge in his chamber and requested him to
disqualify himself on the ground which the respondent judge might consider just and valid.
The circumstances that led the respondent judge to declare the petitioner in direct contempt
of court do not indicate any deliberate design on the part of the petitioner to disrespect
respondent judge. The petitioner has not misbehaved in court or in the presence of the
respondent judge so as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings. He simply expressed his
sincere feeling under the circumstances. Certainly, any person is entitled to his opinion
about a judge, whether that opinion is flattering or not. A judge as a public servant should
not be so thin-skinned or sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an
honest opinion about him.

2. Bildner v Ilusorio

Facts:

The disbarment case against respondent Atty. Singson stemmed from his alleged attempt,
as counsel of Ramon Ilusorio (Ramon) in Civil Case No. 4537-R, to exert influence on
presiding Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Reyes to rule in Ramons favor.
To complainant-petitioners, the bid to influence, which allegedly came in the form of a bribe
offer, may be deduced from the following exchanges during the May 31, 2000 hearing on
Ramons motion for Judge Reyes to inhibit himself from hearing Civil Case No. 4537-R. In
the said hearing, Judge Reyes narrated that Atty. Singson has been calling his residence in
Baguio City for about 20 to 50 times already and had offered Atty. Oscar Sevilla, his
classmate at Ateneo Law School P500,000 to give it to him for the purpose of ruling in favor
of Ramon. Complainant-petitioners likewise submitted an affidavit made by Judge Reyes
concerning the attempts of Atty. Singson to bribe him concerning the case of Ramon Ilusorio
vs. Baguio Country Club. The attempts to bribe him consisted of visiting him about three
times in his office and making a dozen calls to his Manila and Baguio Residences offering
him bribe money. Complainant-petitioners also submitted Atty. Oscar Sevillas affidavit to
support the attempted bribery charge against Atty. Singson.

In view of the foregoing considerations, petitioners prayed for the disbarment or discipline
of Atty. Singson for attempted bribery and gross misconduct.

Issue: WHETHER OR NOT ATTY. SINGSON SHOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY

DISCIPLINED OR DISBARRED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR ALLEGED GROSS
MISCONDUCT IN ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE JUDGE ANTONIO REYES

There is a well-grounded reason to believe that Atty. Singson indeed attempted to influence
Judge Reyes decide a case in favor of Atty. Singsons client. The interplay of the
documentary evidence presented provide for the reason. Significantly, Atty. Singson
admitted having made phone calls to Judge Reyes, either in his residence or office in Baguio
City during the period material. He offers the lame excuse, however, that he was merely
following up the status of a temporary restraining order applied for and sometimes asking
for the resetting of hearings.

The Court finds the explanation proffered as puerile as it is preposterous. Matters touching
on case status could and should be done through the court staff, and resetting is usually
accomplished thru proper written motion or in open court. And going by Judge Reyes
affidavit, the incriminating calls were sometimes made late in the evening and sometimes in
the most unusual hours, such as while Judge Reyes was playing golf with Atty. Sevilla. Atty.
Sevilla lent corroborative support to Judge Reyes statements, particularly about the fact
that Atty. Singson wanted Judge Reyes apprised that they, Singson and Sevilla, were law
school classmates.

The fact that Atty. Singson did talk on different occasions to Judge Reyes, initially
through a mutual friend, Atty. Sevilla, leads us to conclude that Atty. Singson was
indeed trying to influence the judge to rule in his clients favor. This conduct is not
acceptable in the legal profession for it violates Canon 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

In assessing the case, we must stress the difficulty of proving bribery. The transaction is
always done in secret and often only between the two parties concerned. Indeed, there is
no concrete evidence in the records regarding the commission by Atty. Singson of attempted
bribery. Even Atty. Sevilla did not mention any related matter in his affidavit. Nevertheless,
Judge Reyes disclosures in his affidavit and in open court deserve some weight. The
possibility of an attempted bribery is not far from reality considering Atty. Singsons
persistent phone calls, one of which he made while Judge Reyes was with Atty. Sevilla.
Judge Reyes declaration may have been an "emotional outburst" as described by Atty.
Singson, but the spontaneity of an outburst only gives it more weight.
While the alleged attempted bribery may perhaps not be supported by evidence other than
Judge Reyes statements, there is nevertheless enough proof to hold Atty. Singson liable for
unethical behavior of attempting to influence a judge, itself a transgression of considerable
gravity. However, heeding the injunction against decreeing disbarment where a lesser
sanction would suffice to accomplish the desired end, a suspension for one year from the
practice of law appears appropriate.

Respect to Court/Disciplinary & Authority of the Court

1. Zaldivar v Gonzales

Facts:

Petitioner Zaldivar is one of several defendants in Criminal Cases for violation of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the
Tanodbayan conducted the preliminary investigation and filed the criminal informations in
those cases (originally TBP Case No. 86-00778).

On 10 September 1987, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and mandamus (G.R. Nos. 79690-707) naming as respondents both the Sandiganbayan and
Hon. Raul M. Gonzalez. Among other things, petitioner assailed: (1) the 5 February 1987
Resolution of the "Tanodbayan" recommending the filing of criminal informations against
petitioner Zaldivar and his co-accused in TBP Case No. 86-00778; and (2) the 1 September
1987 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 12159-12161 and
1216312177 denying his Motion to Quash the criminal informations filed in those cases by
the "Tanodbayan." In this respect, petitioner alleged that respondent Gonzalez, as
Tanodbayan and under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, was no longer vested with
power and authority independently to investigate and to institute criminal cases for graft
and corruption against public officials and employees, and hence that the informations filed
in Criminal Cases Nos. 12159-12161 and 12163-12177 were all null and void.

On 9 February 1988, petitioner Zaldivar filed with the Court a Motion to Cite in Contempt
directed at respondent Gonzalez. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez
in: (1) having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No.
12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and (2) issuing certain allegedly contemptuous
statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578.

Issue: W/N Gonzales is liable for the contemptuous statements?

HELD:

This Court is compelled to hold that the statements here made by respondent Gonzalez
clearly constitute contempt and call for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the
Supreme Court. Respondent's statements, especially the charge that the Court
deliberately rendered an erroneous and unjust decision in the Consolidated
Petitions, necessarily implying that the justices of this Court betrayed their oath of
office, merely to wreak vengeance upon the respondent here, constitute the
grossest kind of disrespect for the Court. Such statements very clearly debase and
degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of administration of
justice in the country. That respondent's baseless charges have had some impact outside
the internal world of subjective intent, is clearly demonstrated by the filing of a complaint
for impeachment of thirteen (13) out of the then fourteen (14) incumbent members of this
Court, a complaint the centerpiece of which is a repetition of the appalling claim of
respondent that this Court deliberately rendered a wrong decision as an act of reprisal
against the respondent.

2. IN RE: PONCIANO B. JACINTO

Facts:

The Court has initiated this action motu proprio because of the improvident language and
conduct of Atty. Jacinto, counsel in the Palmario v. SSS case.

Palmario v SSS case was about the question of Palmario where she was considered resigned
from her last day of actual service by the CSC. She was considered resigned after she failed
to report to SSS after being absent for one year. There were several motions for
reconsideration filed to the SC but the SC dismissed the same because it just alleged facts
without legal basis.

Atty. Jacinto included in his Special and Very Urgent Manifestation to the SC insults and
threats in the most boorish and insolent manner. He was warned it of a looming danger
ahead if his motions are not granted; averred that denial of his petition will make the Court
as superfluous as a hole in the head; broadly hinted that he will then give the media news
of the most nauseating kind involving the Court and made other irresponsible charges and
insinuations that besmirch the higher tribunal and undermine popular faith in its integrity.

Held:

The Court suspended Atty. Jacinto. The above statements are clearly contemptuous. Every
lawyer is expected to maintain the proper decorum in his dealings with the courts
of justice and is never justified in using scurrilous and threatening language in
pleading his clients cause. While criticism of judicial conduct is not forbidden and zeal in
advocacy is in fact encouraged, the lawyer must always act within the limits of propriety and
good taste and with deference for the judges before whom he pleads.

3. IN RE: ALMACEN

FACTS:

Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen (passed the bar in 1941) was counsel for the defendant in the
case of Virginia Yaptinchay v. Antonio H Calero. It was a civil case which the trial court
decided against Atty. Almacens client. He then filed motion of reconsideration and furnished
a copy of it to the adverse party. Such copy however failed to state the time and place of
the hearing thereby making it a useless scrap of paper.

The lack of proof of service meant failure to perfect the motion on time (Atty. Almacen
served it late and therefore had no more time to correct his misteke). The issue was raised
to the CA who agreed with the plaintiff in the case that it should be dismissed. Atty.
Almacen then raised the issue on certiorari to the SC who rejected it via minute resolution.

It was at this point that Atty. Almacen expressed his disappointment over the SC via filing a
Petition to Surrender Lawyers Certificate of Title where he would surrender his certificate
to the Clerk of Court to be held in trust until the time comes when he shall regain faith and
confidence in the SC once again and therefore resume his practice of the noblest profession.
Such petition also contained lengthy accusations of constitutional violations and saying
that the justice administered by the SC was not only blind but also deaf and dumb. Asked
to show cause as to why he should not be disciplined for his actions he replied with an
answer that was undignified, cynical embellished with sarcasm and innuendo, saying things
like:

We condemn the SIN not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS not the ACTOR. We attack the
decision of this Court, not the members. x x x We were provoked.

Did His Honors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for JUSTICE, CHARITY,
GENEROSITY and FAIRNESS? Did His Honors attempt to justify their stubborn denial with
any semblance of reason, NEVER.

Atty. Almacen also quoted the bible as opening statement; But why doust thou see the
speck in thy brothers eye, and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? x x x Thou
hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast
out the speck from thy brothers eys. Basically, Atty. Alamacen felt extremely bitter at his
motion being denied and the reason for such denial being delivered only through a minute
resolution.

RULING:

First off, the SC justified the need to reject numerous appeals with an outright denial or
minute resolution. Were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for every petition
we reject we should be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed upon us by the
Constitution. The SC only accepts those cases which present questions whose resolutions
will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved.

Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further notice. The Supreme
Court emphasizes that it is the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY of every lawyer to
criticize the decision of the Court but such criticism must be decent and proper. A
critique of the court must be intelligent and discriminating fitting to its high
function as the court of last resort. Any time after this suspension becomes effective
Atty. Almacen may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of
law. (We assume by apologizing because he was unapologetic when he was asked to explain
why he shouldnt be disciplined.)

4. RHEEM OF THE PHIL V. FERRER

Facts:

This is a case for contempt against Atty. Jose Armonio concerning his motion for
reconsideration which contained words which the Court deemed as disrespectful, sarcastic
and makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of [this] Court blindly adhere to earlier
rulings and that the Court is patently inept [and] it has committed error and continuously
repeated that error to the point of perpetuation.

An excerpt follows:
One pitfall into which this Honorable Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the question as
to whether or not a particular subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations is the tendency of this Honorable Court to rely upon its own
pronouncement without due regard to the statutes which delineate the jurisdiction of the
industrial courtThis error is manifested by the decisions of this Honorable Court citing
earlier rulings but without making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute
governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations
Attys. Alfonso Ponce Enrile, Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Manuel Montecillo, Enrique Belo and
Oscar Ongsiako are partners of the law firm in which Armonio is an associate of. The
partners of the law firm, in their return, offered their sincerest apologies to the Court,
stating that the contents of the MR is not meant to offend the Court, a result of
overenthusiasm and that it was prepared by Armonio personally who perhaps have become
to emotionally involved in the case. The partners also assumed full responsibility for the
contents of the MR and admitted that not one of the partners was able to pass upon the
final draft of the document.

Issues:
1. W/N the partners should be held liable?
2. W/N Atty. Armonio should be held liable?

Ruling:
1. Partly. The Court overlooked the shortcomings of the members firm but called attention
to their lack of control of the contents of the court pleadings given that such pleadings carry
the name of their firm.

2. Yes. The Court admonished Atty. Armonio on the grounds that one of the duties of a
lawyer to the court is To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers as well as maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude. Also, the
Court said that it is incumbent upon lawyers to support the , courts against unjust criticism
and clamor. Ultimately, the Court took notice of the use of unnecessary language which it
deems to jeopardize high esteem in courts, creates and promotes distrust in judicial
administration, while it might have been caused by overenthusiasm on the part of the
lawyer, the language used must still be within the bounds of propriety and due regard for
the proper place of courts in the system of government. Atty. Armonio cant escape
responsibility and at best, the lack of intent to disrespect the Court merely lessens the
liability.

Trivia: The law firm in question is the firm of Atty. Alimurung.

5. MONTECILLO V. GICA

FACTS:

Atty. del Mar represented Montecillo in a deflation case against Gica. The RTC ruled in favor
of Montecillo however CA reversed the decision. Atty. del Mar moved for reconsideration of
the CAs decision with veiled threats by mentioning the provisions of RPC on knowingly
rendered unjust judgment and judgment rendered through negligence, and the innuendo
that the CA allowed itself to be deceived. CA admonished del Mar to remember that threats
and abusive language cannot compel any court to grant reconsideration. On the second
motion of del Mar, he insinuated that he will bring the matter to the President of the
Philippines and reiterated his threats. He was asked to explain within 10 days why he should
not be punished. He responded by saying that the court cannot be threatened and also sent
a letter to the Justices informing that he already sent the letter to the President. He also
reminded them of another civil case he had against the justices of SC. He was found guilty if
contempt by the CA and condemned to pay a fine (200) and ordered to be suspended from
the practice of law. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. del Mar is guilty of contempt of court

HELD:
YES.

1. It may appear that second only to the duty of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines , is the
duty of all attorneys to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officer but it is of paramount importance. A lawyer must always remember that he is
an officer of the court exercising a high privilege and serving in the noble mission of
administering justice.

2. A just man can never be threatened is not at all true. Any man, just or unjust, can be
threatened. If he is unjust, he will succumb, if he is just, he will not.

3. A lawyer facing contempt proceedings cannot just be allowed to voluntary retire from the
practice of law, an act which would negate the inherent power of the court to punish him for
contempt in defense of its integrity and honor. His accusations tend to erode the peoples
faith in the integrity of the courts of justice and in the administration of justice. (He wanted
to retire because of old age but the court did not allow it.)

6. BALAOING V. CALDERON
Facts:

Atty. Eduardo Balaoing filed several administrative complaints against different judges of
Olongapo and Zambales.

Judge Dojillo this complaint was dimissed for lack of merit. But Balaoing was required to
show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for having suppressed certain
material facts and for having engaged in forum shopping. Explanation was declared
unsatisfactory and he was severely censured and warned

Judge Maliwanag grave misconduct for alleged failure and refusal to issue the writ of
execution pending appeal prayed for by complainant. The court was disturbed by Balaoings
unrestrained use of unsavory, defamatory language. The latter accused judge of wearing his
brief (short) while in chamber during office hours, it is undignified, especially so when his
body has traces of fungus, which may have been afflicted during his 26 years as Assistant
City Fiscal of Olongapo, a dirt city. This complaint dismissed, suspended for 1 year and
P1000

Judge Calderon misconduct, abuse of authority, malicious delay in administration of

justice. He allegedly does not follow the Circular, merely treats it as directory. He
automatically grants postponements and deferments, drinks (whisky like water) and
fraternizes with lawyers close to Mayor Gordon, refused to declare defendants in default
despite repeated non-appearances, and he sanctions the setup of having his legal
researcher work under the supervision of an OIC who, according to complainant, is grossly
inefficient and a notorious swindler with no background in law.

OIC Leonor Maniago Balaoing alleges that when he came out of the courtroom, he was
castigated by the former for allegedly calling her notorious, swindler, insane, etc.

Judge Calderon filed his comment He said the complaint was precipitated by events in
Balaoing vs. Gavilan, an action for foreclosure. Balaoing in that case was the highest bidder
in a public auction. A certificate of Sale was issued. Judge quashed a writ of possession
because redemption period had not expired. This allegedly infuriated Balaoing. Hence he
filed several suits, one after the other motion for inhibition alleging the judges mental
dishonesty and grossness of ignorance of the law, petition for certiorari and prohibition, a
civil case for damages, a petition to cite judge in contempt. When redemption period
expired, judge issued a writ of possession but Balaoing did not take possession showing
disinterest.

As shown above, Balaoing has a penchant for filing charges against judges in whose salas
he has pending cases, whenever the latter render decisions or issue orders adverse to him
and/or his clients. He filed baseless and frivolous complaints with no other purpose than to
harass and exact vengeance.

Balaoings actions run counter to the Canons.

Canon 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers and should insist on similar conduct by others
Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the courts
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or
have no materiality to the case
Balaoing was disbarred.

7. MACEDA V. ABIERA

FACTS:
JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 12, San Jose, Antique, is
administratively charged by District Public Attorney Napoleon A. Abiera with grave abuse of
discretion and misconduct relative to a civil case 1 pending before respondent judge, and
with gross dishonesty and inefficiency in deliberately falsifying his certificates of service, and
failing to decide cases submitted for decision within the reglementary period prescribed by
the Constitution.

The charge of grave abuse of discretion and misconduct stemmed from the Order of 20
December 1990 issued by respondent judge suspending complainant from the practice of
law.

It appears that both counsel of the parties previously agreed to set Civil Case No. 2119 for
hearing on 20 to 22 August 1990. On 20 August 1990, however, complainant requested the
Court Interpreter for a second call of the case because he would first attend the trial of
another case in Br. 11 of the same court. 2 At 11:15 that same morning, after waiting for
complainant in vain, Civil Case No. 2119 was called for the second time. However, neither
the complainant nor his clients appeared. As a result, respondent judge declared in open
court that plaintiffs were deemed to have waived further presentation of their evidence.

On 7 December 1990, respondent judge ordered him

. . . to show cause in writing within five (5) days from today or not later than the close of
office on December 12, 1990 why he should not be punished for contempt and/or otherwise
disciplinar(ily) dealt with for abusing the court in participating and agreeing in the reception
of evidence for the defendants on August 21, 1990 but only to ask maliciously later for its
nullification and why no other liability should attach to him by reason of the heretofore
described acts and/or omission of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct.
On 20 December 1990, respondent judge already issued an order suspending complainant
from the practice of law.
ISSUE: Is the order of December 20 1990 valid?

HELD:

As a general rule, the acts done by a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though erroneous. 15 These acts become subject to our
disciplinary power only when they are attended by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad
faith. A re-evaluation of the case at bar presents no occasion for us to depart from the
general rule.

The records show that Civil Case No. 2119 has long been pending presentation of plaintiffs'
evidence. Yet, respondent judge has been very lenient in granting motions for
postponements to both counsel of the parties, more particularly to counsel for plaintiffs. Of
the twenty-seven (27) motions for postponement granted, seventeen (17) of these were
filed by complainant as counsel for plaintiffs, four (4) by agreement of the parties, one (1)
by reason of the stenographic reporters' strike, and five (5) by motion of defendants. 16
Finally, upon prior agreement of both counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, respondent
judge set the case for hearing on 20 to 22 August 1990.

Given this factual backdrop, complainant's non-appearance at the hearing despite his
previous commitment and his personal request for a second call of the case inevitably
pushed the patience of respondent judge to the limit. In his Order of 20 August 1990,
respondent tersely declared that "(t)he complaint in the case was filed on 18 June 1986 and
plaintiffs have not even rested their case due to repeated postponements asked by
plaintiffs. This Court cannot tolerate further delay in the proceedings of this case."