Nestle Philippines, Inc. v.

Sanchez | 1987 | Resolution | Per Curiam

TOPIC: Canon 13 – A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any
impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.

SUMMARY: Different groups and unions were picketing in front of the Supreme Court. Their
counsel was ordered to dissuade them from picketing as this was considered a contempt of court
and a display of impropriety in terms of influencing the court and its decisions.

FACTS:

 There were two cases pending in court:

o Nestle Phils., Inc. v. Sanchez and Union of Filipiro Employees
o Kimberly Independent Union v. NLRC
 Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor Union held pickets in from
the Padre Faura gate of the Supreme Court building
o They sometimes obstructed ingress and egress to court’s premises
o They constructed provisional shelters with kitchen along the sidewalks
o They littered the place with food containers and trash
o They waved their streamers and slogans
o They harangued the court all day long with loud speakers
 Their leaders were received by Justices Pedro Yap and Marcelo Fernan, but the
demonstrations still didn’t cease
o Court will not entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets are maintained
 Court issued a resolution to have the union leaders and their counsel of record for Filipro
employees, Atty. Jose Espinas to appear before court and show cause why they shouldn’t
be held in contempt and why Atty. Espinas should not be administratively dealt with
o Atty. Potenciano Flores, counsel for Kimberly, was recuperating from operation
 Atty. Espinas, in behalf of everyone, apologized to the Court, and assured that the acts
would not be repeated
o He said that the persons cited with contempt were willing to abide by the
consequences of their actions, and they understood the reason for their citation
o There was a written manifestation from the persons concerned that they promise
not to do their actions again
 Atty. Espinas prayed for leniency, because the picket was actually spearheaded by an
unregistered alliance: Pagkakais ng Mangagawa sa Timog Katagalogan (PAMANTIK)
 He said that he had explained to the picketers why their actions were wrong
o The delay in their resolution is beyond the control of the court
o That the court always remained steadfast in being the guardian of the Constitution

ISSUES + RATIO:
 WON cited person should be held in contempt? (YES, but sige na nga, di na)
o Court accepted the apologies, so they forewent the imposition of the sanction,
although warranted by the contemptuous actions.
 The Court will not hesitate in future situations to apply the full force of the
law
o The picketers attempted to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in
any case pending before it.
o Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels (motions and
pleadings) with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators
 Court must be allowed to proceed to the disposition of its business in an
orderly manner free from outside coercion, obstruction and embarrassment
 Facts should be decided upon evidence and not influenced by bias,
prejudice or sympathies
o The aforecited acts are not only an affront to the dignity of this Court, but equality
a violation of the right of the adverse parties and the citizenry at large.
 Parties have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in court
by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor
o The right of petition is an inherent right, but such right must not be invoked to
shatter the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts
 WON Atty. Jose Espinas should be administratively dealt with? (NOT anymore)
o The individuals are not lawyers and are not knowledgeable of what constitutes an
abuse of their constitutional right to free speech and assembly, or what acts can
warrant a contempt of court
 The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and
heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record.
o Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did his best to
demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture.
o This incident should be a reminder to all members of the legal profession that it is
their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters
of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice

DISPOSITION:
WHEREFORE, the contempt charges against herein respondents are DISMISSED. Henceforth,
no demonstrations or pickets intended to pressure or influence courts of justice into acting one
way or the other on pending cases shall be allowed in the vicinity and/or within the premises of
any and all courts.