In re Laureta

Facts:

Eva Maravilla-Ilustre wrote a letter to the Justices of the First Division of the Supreme
Court alleging that the dismissal of her case via a minute resolution was promulgated
unjustly and in violation of the legal and judicial ethics. In her letter, she threatened
that she will hold a press conference regarding the issue and requested that the judges
disclose the extent of their participation in the promulgation of the minute resolution.
She also claims that Justice Yap of the first division was previously the law partner of
Atty. Ordonez, then counsel of the other party, and now the Solicitor General.

The Supreme Court, acting on the letter of Ilustre, explained that when the resolution
was issued, Justice Abad was the presiding justice and Justice Yap had no knowledge of
the fact that Atty. Ordonez was the counsel for the opponent and that Justice Yap later
on inhibited himself from the case.

Ilustre then filed a criminal complaint against the Justices before the Tanodbayan for
knowingly rendering an unjust resolution and a complaint charging Justice Yap and
Atty. Ordonez of using their influence in rendering the said resolution.

Atty. Wenceslao Laureta, counsel of Ilustre, allegedly circulated these complaints to the
press. In particular, the headline in the Daily Express read Ordonez, 8 Justices Face
Graft Charges making it appear that the Justices were charged with Graft and
Corruption.

The Tanodbayan dismissed the compliant and subsequently, the Supreme Court
charged Atty Laureta and Eva Ilustre and found them guilty of Contempt. Atty. Laureta
claims that the order of suspension issued without hearing was violative of his
constitutional right to due process of law making said order null and void while Ilustre
claims that her constitutional right to due process was likewise violated for she should
have been given every opportunity to present her side since contempt proceedings are
in the nature of a criminal proceeding.