A.C. No.

6677 June 10, 2014

EUPROCINA I. CRISOSTOMO, MARILYN L. SOLIS, EVELYN MARQUIZO, ROSEMARIE

BALATUCAN, MILDRED BATANG, MARILEN MINERALES, and MELINDA D.
SIOTING, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. PHILIP Z. A. NAZARENO, Respondent.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

For the Court's resolution is an administrative complaint1 filed by complainants Euprocina I.

Crisostomo (Crisostomo), Marilyn L. Solis (Solis), Evelyn Marquizo (Marquizo), Rosemarie
Balatucan (Balatucan), Mildred Batang (Batang), Marilen Minerales (Minerales), and Melinda D.
Sioting (Sioting) against respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno (Atty. Nazareno), charging him with
making false declarations in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case in
disregard of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, and malpractice as a notary public in violation of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Facts

Sometime in 2001, complainants individually purchased housing units (subject properties) in Patricia
South Villa Subdivision, Anabu-II, Imus, Cavite, from Rudex International Development Corp.
(Rudex).2 In view of several inadequacies and construction defects3 in the housing units and the
subdivision itself, complainants sought the rescission of their respective contracts to sell before the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), seeking the refund of the monthly amortizations
they had paid.4 The first batch of rescission cases was filed by herein complainants Sioting5 on May
24, 2002, and Crisostomo6 and Marquizo7 on June 10, 2002, while the second batch of rescission
cases was filed by complainants Balatucan8 on March 3, 2003, Solis9 and Ederlinda M.
Villanueva10 (represented by Minerales) on May 12, 2003, and Batang11 on July 29, 2003. In all the
foregoing rescission cases, Rudex was represented by herein respondent Atty. Nazareno.

Judgments of default were eventually rendered against Rudex in the first batch of rescission
cases.12 Sometime in August 2003, Rudex filed three (3) petitions for review13 before the HLURB
assailing the same. In the certifications against forum shopping attached to the said petitions,
Rudex, through its President Ruben P. Baes, and legal counsel Atty. Nazareno, stated that it has not
commenced or has knowledge of any similar action or proceeding involving the same issues
pending before any court, tribunal or agency14 – this, notwithstanding the fact that Rudex, under the
representation of Atty. Nazareno, previously filed an ejectment case on September 9, 2002 against
Sioting and her husband, Rodrigo Sioting (Sps. Sioting), before the Municipal Trial Court of Imus,
Cavite (MTC).15

On January 29, 2004, Rudex, again represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed another complaint16 against
Sps. Sioting before the HLURB for the rescission of their contract to sell and the latter’s ejectment,
similar to its pending September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint. Yet, in the certification against forum
shopping attached thereto executed by the Head of its Credit and Collection department, Norilyn D.
Unisan,17 Rudex declared that it has not commenced or is not aware of any action or proceeding
involving the same issues pending before any court, tribunal or agency.18The said certification was
notarized by Atty. Nazareno himself.19
On April 1, 2004, six (6) similar complaints20 for rescission of contracts to sell and ejectment, plus
damages for non-payment of amortizations due, were filed by Atty. Nazareno, on behalf of Rudex,
against the other complainants before the HLURB. The certifications against forum shopping
attached thereto likewise stated that Rudex has not commenced or has any knowledge of any
similar pending action before any court, tribunal or agency.21

On February 21, 2005, complainants jointly filed the present administrative complaint for disbarment
against Atty. Nazareno, claiming that in the certifications against forum shopping attached to the
complaints for rescission and ejectment of Rudex filed while Atty. Nazareno was its counsel, the
latter made false declarations therein that no similar actions or proceedings have been commenced
by Rudex or remained pending before any other court, tribunal or agency when, in fact, similar
actions or proceedings for rescission had been filed by herein complainants before the HLURB
against Rudex and Atty. Nazareno, and an ejectment complaint was filed by Rudex, represented by
Atty. Nazareno, against Sps. Sioting. In addition, complainants asserted that Atty. Nazareno
committed malpractice as a notary public since he only assigned one (1) document number (i.e.,
Doc. No. 1968) in all the certifications against forum shopping that were separately attached to the
six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment.22

Despite notice, Atty. Nazareno failed to file his comment and refute the administrative charges
against him.23

In the interim, the HLURB, in the Resolutions dated April 14, 200524 and May 12, 2005,25 dismissed
Rudex’s complaints for rescission and ejectment26 on the ground that its statements in the
certifications against forum shopping attached thereto were false due to the existence of similar
pending cases in violation of Section 5,Rule 7 of the Rules of Court.

The IBP’s Report and Recommendation

In a Report and Recommendation27 dated March 8, 2012, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Investigating Commissioner Oliver A. Cachapero recommended the suspension of Atty. Nazareno
for a period of six (6) months for his administrative violations.

The Investigating Commissioner found, among others, that there were unassailable proofs that the
certification against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s ejectment complaint against Sps. Sioting
had been erroneously declared, considering that at the time Rudex filed the said complaint in
September 2002, Sps. Sioting’s rescission complaint against Rudex, filed on May 24, 2002, was
already pending. Hence, it was incumbent upon Rudex to have declared its existence, more so,
since both complaints involve the same transaction and essential facts, and a decision on the
rescission complaint would amount to res judicata on the ejectment complaint.28 In this relation, the
Investigating Commissioner observed that Atty. Nazareno cannot claim innocence of his omission
since he was not only Rudex’s counsel but the notarizing officer as well. Having knowingly made
false entries in the subject certifications against forum shopping, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that Atty. Nazareno be held administratively liable and thereby penalized with six (6)
months suspension.29

In a Resolution30 dated April 15, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
Investigating Commissioner’s Report and Recommendation, but modified the recommended penalty
from a suspension of six (6) months to only one (1) month.

The Issue Before the Court

The essential issue in this case is whether or not Atty. Nazareno should be held administratively
liable and accordingly suspended for a period of one (1) month.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court affirms the IBP’s findings with modification as to the penalty imposed.

Separate from the proscription against forum shopping31 is the violation of the certification
requirement against forum shopping, which was distinguished in the case of Sps. Ong v. CA32 as
follows:

The distinction between the prohibition against forum shopping and the certification requirement
should by now be too elementary to be misunderstood. To reiterate, compliance with the certification
against forum shopping is separate from and independent of the avoidance of the act of forum
shopping itself. There is a difference in the treatment between failure to comply with the certification
requirement and violation of the prohibition against forum shopping not only in terms of imposable
sanctions but also in the manner of enforcing them. The former constitutes sufficient cause for the
dismissal without prejudice to the filing of the complaint or initiatory pleading upon motion and after
hearing, while the latter is a ground for summary dismissal thereof and for direct contempt. x x x.33

Under Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, the submission of false entries in a certification
against forum shopping constitutes indirect or direct contempt of court, and subjects the erring
counsel to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions, viz.:

Section 5. Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under
oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any
action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and,
to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such
other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he
should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall
report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.

Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the
complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or non-compliance with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt
of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the acts of the
party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the same shall be
ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as well as a cause
for administrative sanctions. (Emphases supplied)

In the realm of legal ethics, said infraction may be considered as a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1
and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code) which read as follows:

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LANDAND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
 xxxx

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

In this case, it has been established that Atty. Nazareno made false declarations in the certifications
against forum shopping attached to Rudex’s pleadings, for which he should be held administratively
liable.

Records show that Atty. Nazareno, acting as Rudex’s counsel, filed, in August 2003, petitions for
review assailing the judgments of default rendered in the first batch of rescission cases without
disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of the ejectment case it filed
against Sps. Sioting which involves an issue related to the complainants’ rescission cases. Further,
on January 29, 2004, Rudex, represented by Atty. Nazareno, filed a complaint for rescission and
ejectment against Sps. Sioting without disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the
existence of Sioting’s May 24, 2002 rescission complaint against Rudex as well as Rudex’s own
September 9, 2002 ejectment complaint also against Sps. Sioting. Finally, on April 1, 2004,Atty.
Nazareno, once more filed rescission and ejectment complaints against the other complainants in
this case without disclosing in the certifications against forum shopping the existence of
complainants’ own complaints for rescission.

Owing to the evident similarity of the issues involved in each set of cases, Atty. Nazareno – as
mandated by the Rules of Court and more pertinently, the canons of the Code – should have
truthfully declared the existence of the pending related cases in the certifications against forum
shopping attached to the pertinent pleadings. Considering that Atty. Nazareno did not even bother to
refute the charges against him despite due notice, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from
the IBP’s resolution on his administrative liability. However, as for the penalty to be imposed, the
1âwphi1

Court deems it proper to modify the IBP’s finding on this score.

In Molina v. Atty. Magat,34 a penalty of six (6) months suspension from the practice of law was
imposed against the lawyer therein who was shown to have deliberately made false and untruthful
statements in one of his pleadings. Given that Atty. Nazareno’s infractions are of a similar nature,
but recognizing further that he, as may be gleaned from the foregoing discussion, had repetitively
committed the same, the Court hereby suspends him from the practice of law for a period of one (1)
year.

Separately, the Court further finds Atty. Nazareno guilty of malpractice as a notary public,
considering that he assigned only one document number (i.e., Doc. No. 1968) to the certifications
against forum shopping attached to the six (6) April 1, 2004 complaints for rescission and ejectment
despite the fact that each of them should have been treated as a separate notarial act. It is a
standing rule that for every notarial act, the notary shall record in the notarial register at the time of
the notarization, among others, the entry and page number of the document notarized, and that he
shall give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register.35 Evidently, Atty. Nazareno did not comply with the
foregoing rule.

Worse, Atty. Nazareno notarized the certifications against forum shopping attached to all the
aforementioned complaints, fully aware that they identically asserted a material falsehood, i.e., that
Rudex had not commenced any actions or proceedings or was not aware of any pending actions or
proceedings involving the same issues in any other forum. The administrative liability of an erring
notary public in this respect was clearly delineated as a violation of Rule 1.01,Canon 1 of the Code
in the case of Heirs of the Late Spouses Villanueva v. Atty. Beradio,36 to wit:

Where admittedly the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement or information
contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the
Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case
may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the notarization process may be undermined
and public confidence on notarial documents diminished. In this case, respondent’s conduct
amounted to a breach of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers
to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for the law and legal processes. Respondent also
violated Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct.37 (Emphasis supplied)

In said case, the lawyer who knowingly notarized a document containing false statements had his
notarial commission revoked and was disqualified from being commissioned as such for a period of
one (1) year. Thus, for his malpractice as a notary public, the Court is wont to additionally impose
the same penalties of such nature against him. However, due to the multiplicity of his infractions on
this front, coupled with his willful malfeasance in discharging the office, the Court deems it proper to
revoke his existing commission and permanently disqualify him from being commissioned as a
notary public. Indeed, respondent ought to be reminded that:38

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public
interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization
converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith
and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely
upon he acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument.

xxxx

When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of the document under his hand and
seal he gives the document the force of evidence. Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring
documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should
surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given
without further proof of their execution and delivery. Where the notary public is a lawyer, a graver
responsibility is placed upon him by reason of his solemn oath to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any. Failing in this, he must accept the consequences of his
unwarranted actions.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Philip Z. A. Nazareno is found GUILTY of making false declarations
in the certifications against forum shopping subject of this case, as well as malpractice as a notary
public. Accordingly, he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. Further, he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being
commissioned as a notary public and, his notarial commission, if currently existing, is hereby
REVOKED.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, to be appended to
respondent's personal record as attorney. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar
1âwphi1

of the Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 8208 January 10, 2018

RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA, Complainant

vs.
ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V. CALAYAN, Respondent

DECISION

GESMUNDO, J.:

Before the Court is a Counter-Complaint1 filed by complainant (Ret.) Judge Virgilio

Alpajora (Complainant) against respondent Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V. Calayan (Respondent), which
originated from an administrative complaint filed by the latter against the former before the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) for ignorance of the law and/or issuance of undue order. The
administrative complaint against Judge Alpajora was dismissed by the Court in a Resolution,2 dated
March 2, 2009, on the ground that the matters raised therein were judicial in nature.

In his Comment/Opposition with Counter-Complaint to Discipline Complainant,3 complainant charged

respondent with (a) filing a malicious and harassment administrative case, (b) propensity for
dishonesty in the allegations in his pleadings, (c) misquoting provisions of law, and (d)
misrepresentation of facts. Complainant prayed for respondent's disbarment and cancellation of his
license as a lawyer.

The Antecedents

Prior to this case, an intra-corporate case docketed as Civil Case No. 2007-10 and entitled "Calayan
Educational Foundation Inc. (CEFI), Dr. Arminda Calayan, Dr. Bernardita Calayan-Brion and Dr.
Manuel Calayan vs. Atty. Ronalda A.V. Calayan, Susan S. Calayan and Deanna
Rachelle S. Calayan, " was filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City designated as
commercial court and presided by Judge Adolfo Encomienda. Respondent was President and
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of CEFI. He signed and filed pleadings as "Special Counsel pro
se" for himself. Court proceedings ensued despite several inhibitions by judges to whom the case
was re-raffled until it was finally re-raffled to complainant. Thereafter, complainant issued an
Omnibus Order,4dated July 11, 2008 for the creation of a management committee and the
appointment of its members. That Order prompted the filing of the administrative case against the
Judge Alpajora.

The administrative case against complainant was dismissed. The Court, however, referred the
comment/opposition with counter-complaint filed by complainant in the administrative case against
him to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for appropriate action.

The OBC deemed it proper to re-docket the counter-complaint as a regular administrative case
against respondent. Thus, in a Resolution,5 dated June 3, 2009, upon recommendation of the OBC,
the Court resolved to require respondent to submit his comment on the counter-complaint.

In its Resolution,6 dated September 9, 2009, the Court noted respondent's comment and referred the
administrative case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.

After a mandatory conference before the IBP, both parties were directed to submit their respective
verified position papers.
Position of complainant

Complainant alleged that he partially tried and heard Civil Case No. 2007-10, an intra-corporate
case filed against respondent, when he later voluntarily inhibited himself from it on account of the
latter's filing of the administrative case against him.

The intra-corporate case was previously tried by Presiding Judge Adolfo Encomienda (Presiding
Judge Encomienda) until he voluntarily inhibited after respondent filed an Urgent Motion to Recuse
and a Supplement to Defendant's Urgent Motion to Recuse on the grounds of undue delay in
disposing pending incidents, gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency.7 The motions came
after Presiding Judge Encomienda issued an order appointing one Atty. Antonio Acyatan (Atty.
Acyatan) as receiver, who was directed to immediately take over the subject corporation.

After Presiding Judge Encomienda inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to the sala of Executive
Judge Norma Chionglo-Sia, who also inhibited herself because she was about to retire. The case
was referred to Executive Judge Eloida R. de Leon-Diaz for proper disposition and re-raffle.8 The
case was finally raffled to complainant.9

Complainant averred that the administrative case against him by respondent was brought about by
his issuance of the omnibus order, dated July 11, 2008, where he ordered the creation of a
management committee and appointment of its members. Meanwhile, the RTC resolved that Atty.
Acyatan continue to discharge his duties and responsibilities with such powers and authority as the
court-appointed receiver. The trial court also authorized the foundation to pay Atty. Acyatan
reimbursement expenses and professional charges. Complainant claimed that his order was not
acceptable to respondent because he knew the import and effect of the said order - that he, together
with his wife and daughter, would lose their positions as Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary,
respectively, and as members of the Board of Trustees of the CEFI.10

Complainant further claimed that before the records of Civil Case 2007-10 was transmitted to his
sala and after he had inhibited from said case, respondent filed thirteen (13) civil and special actions
before the RTC of Lucena City.11Atty. Calayan also filed two (2) related intra-corporate controversy
cases - violating the rule on splitting causes of actions - involving the management and operation of
the foundation. According to complainant, these showed the propensity and penchant of respondent
in filing cases, whether or not they are baseless, frivolous or unfounded, with no other intention but
to harass, malign and molest his opposing parties, including the lawyers and the handling judges.
Complainant also revealed that respondent filed two (2) other administrative cases against a judge
and an assisting judge in the RTC of Lucena City, which were dismissed because the issues raised
were judicial in nature.12

Complainant also disclosed that before his sala, respondent filed eighteen (18) repetitious and
prohibited pleadings.13 Respondent continuously filed pleadings after pleadings as if to impress upon
the court to finish the main intra-corporate case with such speed. To complainant's mind, the
ultimate and ulterior objective of respondent in filing the numerous pleadings, motions, manifestation
and explanations was to prevent the takeover of the management of CEFI and to finally dismiss the
case at the pre-trial stage.

Complainant further revealed that due to the series of motions for recusation or inhibition of judges,
there is no presiding judge in Lucena City available to try and hear the Calayan cases. Moreover,
respondent filed nine (9) criminal charges against opposing lawyers and their respective clients
before the City Prosecutor of Lucena City. In addition, there were four (4) administrative cases filed
against opposing counsels pending before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline.14
Based on the foregoing, complainant asserted that respondent committed the following: (1) serious
and gross misconduct in his duties as counsel for himself; (2) violated his oath as lawyer for [a] his
failure to observe and maintain respect to the courts (Section 20(b), Rule 138, Rules of Court); [b] by
his abuse of judicial process thru maintaining actions or proceedings inconsistent with truth and
honor and his acts to mislead the judge by false statements (Section 20(d), Rule 138); (3) repeatedly
violated the rules of procedures governing intra-corporate cases and maliciously misused the same
to defeat the ends of justice; and (4) knowingly violated the rule against the filing of multiple actions
arising from the same cause of action.

Position of respondent

In his Position Paper,15 respondent countered that the subject case is barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.

According to him, the counter-complaint was integrated with the Comment/Opposition of

complainant in the administrative case docketed as A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 08-2968-RTJ filed by
respondent against the latter. He stressed that because no disciplinary measures were levelled on
him by the OCA as an outcome of his complaint, charges for malpractice, malice or bad faith were
entirely ruled out; moreso, his disbarment was decidedly eliminated.16Respondent argued that the
doctrine of res judicata was embedded in the OCA's finding that his complaint was judicial in
nature.17 He likewise averred that the conversion of the administrative complaint against a judge into
a disbarment complaint against him, the complaining witness, was hideously adopted to deflect the
charges away from complainant. Respondent insisted that the counter-complaint was not sanctioned
by the Rules of Court on disbarment and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar
Discipline.18

Respondent also claimed that the counter-complaint was unverified and thus, without complainant's
own personal knowledge; instead, it is incontrovertible proof of his lack of courtesy and obedience
toward proper authorities and fairness to a fellow lawyer.19

Further, respondent maintained that complainant committed the following: (1) grossly unethical and
immoral conduct by his impleading a non-party;20 (2) betrayal of his lawyer's oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR);21 (3) malicious and intentional delay in not terminating the pre-
trial,22 in violation of the Interim Rules because he ignored the special summary nature of the
case;23 and (4) misquoted provisions of law and misrepresented the facts.24

Lastly, it was respondent's submission that the counter-complaint failed to adduce the requisite
quantum of evidence to disbar him, even less, to cite him in contempt of court assuming ex
gratia the regularity of the referral of the case.25

Report and Recommendation of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline

In its Report and Recommendation,26 the Investigating Commissioner noted that, instead of refuting
the allegations and evidence against him, respondent merely reiterated his charges against
complainant. Instead of asserting his defense against complainant's charges, the position paper for
the respondent appeared more to be a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated March 2,
2009 rendered by the Supreme Court, dismissing the administrative case against complainant.27

In any case, based on the parties' position papers, the Investigating Commissioner concluded that
respondent violated Section 20, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,28 Rules 8.01, 10.01 to 10.03, 11.03,
11.04, 12.02 and 12.04 of the CPR29 and, thus, recommended his suspension from the practice of
law for two (2) years,30 for the following reasons:
First, respondent did not deny having filed four (4) cases against the counsel involved in the intra-
corporate case from which the subject administrative cases stemmed, and nine (9) criminal cases
against the opposing parties, their lawyers, and the receiver before the Office of the Prosecutor of
Lucena City - all of which were subject of judicial notice. The Investigating Commissioner opined that
such act manifested respondent's malice in paralyzing these lawyers from exerting their utmost effort
in protecting their client's interest.31

Second, respondent committed misrepresentation when he cited a quote from former Chief Justice
Hilario Davide, Jr. as a thesis when, in fact, it was a dissenting opinion. The Investigating
Commissioner further opined that describing the supposed discussions by the judge with
respondent's adverse counsels as contemplated crimes and frauds is not only grave but also
unfounded and irrelevant to the present case.32

Third, respondent grossly abused his right of recourse to the courts by the filing of multiple actions
concerning the same subject matter or seeking substantially identical relief.33 He admitted filing
pleadings indiscriminately, but argued that it was within his right to do so and it was merely for the
purpose of saving CEFI from imminent downfall.34 The Investigating Commissioner opined that the
filing of multiple actions not only was contemptuous, but also a blatant violation of the lawyer's oath.35

Fourth, respondent violated Canon 11 of the CPR by attributing to complainant ill-motives that were
not supported by the record or had no materiality to the case.36 He charged complainant with
coaching adverse counsel on account of their alleged close ties, inefficiency in dealing with his
pleadings, acting with dispatch on the adverse party's motions, partiality to the plaintiffs because he
was a townmate of Presiding Judge Encomienda, and arriving at an order without predicating the
same on legal bases under the principle of stare decisis.37 According to the Investigating
Commissioner, these charges are manifestly without any basis and also established respondent's
disrespect for the complainant.38

Based on the findings, the Investigating Commissioner ultimately concluded:

As a party directly involved in the subject intra-corporate controversy, it is duly noted that
Respondent was emotionally affected by the ongoing case. His direct interest in the proceedings
apparently clouded his judgment, on account of which he failed to act with circumspect in his choice
of words and legal remedies. Such facts and circumstances mitigate Respondent's liability. Hence, it
is hereby recommended that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years.39

Consequently, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution40 adopting and approving the report
and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. It recommended the suspension of
respondent from the practice of law for two (2) years.

Aggrieved, respondent moved for reconsideration.

In a Resolution,41 dated May 4, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors denied respondent's motion for
reconsideration as there was no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Commission and the
motion was a mere reiteration of the matters which had already been threshed out.

Hence, pursuant to Section 12(b), Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court,42 the Resolution of the IBP
Board of Governors, together with the whole record of the case, was transmitted to the Court for final
action.

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopts the findings of the Investigating Commissioner and the recommendation of the IBP
Board of Governors.

It bears stressing that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but also known to possess good moral character.
Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond
reproach, in order to promote the public's faith in the legal profession.43

When lawyers, in the performance of their duties, act in a manner that prejudices not only the rights
of their client, but also of their colleagues and offends due administration of justice, appropriate
disciplinary measures and proceedings are available such as reprimand, suspension or even
disbarment to rectify their wrongful acts.

The Court, however, emphasizes that a case for disbarment or suspension is not meant to grant
relief to a complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession
of its undesirable members in order to protect the public and the courts.44 Proceedings to discipline
erring members of the bar are not instituted to protect and promote the public good only, but also to
maintain the dignity of the profession by the weeding out of those who have proven themselves
unworthy thereof.45

In this case, perusal of the records reveals that Atty. Calayan has displayed conduct unbecoming of
a worthy lawyer.

Harassing tactics against opposing counsel

As noted by the IBP Investigating Commissioner, respondent did not deny filing several cases, both
civil and criminal, against opposing parties and their counsels. In his motion for reconsideration of
the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution, he again admitted such acts but expressed that it was not
ill-willed. He explained that the placing of CEFI under receivership and directing the creation of a
management committee and the continuation of the receiver's duties and responsibilities by virtue of
the Omnibus Order spurred his filing of various pleadings and/or motions.46 It was in his desperation
and earnest desire to save CEFI from further damage that he implored the aid of the courts.47

The Court is mindful of the lawyer's duty to defend his client's cause with utmost zeal. However,
professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and
qualifications.48 The filing of cases by respondent against the adverse parties and their counsels, as
correctly observed by the Investigating Commissioner, manifests his malice in paralyzing the lawyers
from exerting their utmost effort in protecting their client's interest.49 Even assuming arguendo that
such acts were done without malice, it showed respondent's gross indiscretion as a colleague in the
legal profession.

Unsupported ill-motives attributed to a judge

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.50

Here, respondent has consistently attributed unsupported imputations against the complainant in his
pleadings. He insisted that complainant antedated the order, dated August 15, 2008, because the
envelopes where the order came from were rubber stamped as having been mailed only on August
26, 2008.51 He also accused the complainant judge of being in cahoots and of having deplorable
close ties with the adverse counsels;52 and that complainant irrefutably coached said adverse
counsels.53 However, these bare allegations are absolutely unsupported by any piece of evidence.
Respondent did not present any proof to establish complainant's alleged partiality or the antedating.
The date of mailing indicated on the envelope is not the date of issue of the said order.

Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR state that:

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.

xxx

Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent guilty of attributing unsupported ill-motives to
complainant. It must be remembered that all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the
courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting
on a very shaky foundation.54

Hence, no matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his client's cause, he must not
forget to display the appropriate decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal profession,
and to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.

Failure to observe candor, fairness and good faith before the court; failure to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice

It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious
administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty
to satisfy that expectation. Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer if indeed it
could proceed at all.55

In his Motion for Reconsideration56 of the Resolution dated February 10, 2014 of the IBP Board of
Governors, respondent wrote:

Anent, the Respondent's alleged commission of falsehood in his pleadings, suffice it to state that if
certain pleadings prepared by the Respondent contained some allegations that turned out to be
inaccurate, the same were nevertheless unintentional and only arose out of the Respondent's honest
misappreciation of certain facts;57

The records, however, showed that respondent's allegations were not brought about by mere
inaccuracy. For one of his arguments against the complainant, respondent relied on Rule 9 of the
Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies which provides:

SECTION 1. Creation of a Management Committee. - As an incident to any of the cases filed under
these Rules or the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation, A PARTY MAY APPLY for the
appointment of a management committee for the corporation, partnership or association, when there
is imminent danger of: xxx [Emphasis supplied]
He stressed that the courts cannot motu proprio legally direct the appointment of a management
committee when the Interim Rules predicate such appointment exclusively upon the application of a
party in the complaint a quo.58

By employing the term "exclusively" to describe the class of persons who can apply for the
appointment of a management committee,59 respondent tried to mislead the Court. Lawyers are well
aware of the tenor of a provision of law when "may" is used. "May" is construed as permissive and
operating to confer discretion.60 Thus, when the Interim Rules stated that "a party may apply x x x, " it
did not connote exclusivity to a certain class. It simply meant that should a party opt for the
appointment of such, it may do so. It does not, however, exclude the courts from ordering the
appointment of a management committee should the surrounding circumstances of the case warrant
such.

Further, as regards his alleged misquotation, respondent argues that he should have been cited in
contempt. He found justification in Cortes vs. Bangalan,61 to wit:
1âwphi1

xxx. The alleged offensive and contemptuous language contained in the letter-complaint was not
directed to the respondent court. As observed by the Court Administrator, "what respondent should
have done in this particular case is that he should have given the Court (Supreme Court) the
opportunity to rule on the complaint and not simply acted precipitately in citing complainant in
contempt of court in a manner which obviously smacks of retaliation rather than the upholding of a
court's honor."

A judge may not hold a party in contempt of court for expressing concern on his impartiality even if
the judge may have been insulted therein. While the power to punish in contempt is inherent in all
courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the due administration of justice,
judges, however, should exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with utmost
restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing their contempt powers for correction and preservation
not for retaliation or vindication.62

As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, the jurisprudence quoted precisely
cautions a judge against citing a party in contempt, which is totally contradictory to the position of
respondent. He misrepresented the text of a decision, in violation of the CPR.

Moreover, in defense of the multiple pleadings he filed, respondent avers that there is no law or rule
that limits the number of motions, pleadings and even cases as long as they are sufficient in form
and substance and not violative of the prohibition against forum shopping.63 He maintains that his
pleadings were filed in utmost good faith and for noble causes, and that he was merely exercising
his constitutionally protected rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases.64

Ironically, Atty. Calayan's indiscriminate filing of pleadings, motions, civil and criminal cases, and
even administrative cases against different trial court judges relating to controversies involving CEFI,
in fact, runs counter to the speedy disposition of cases. It frustrates the administration of justice. It
degrades the dignity and integrity of the courts.

A lawyer does not have an unbridled right to file pleadings, motions and cases as he pleases.
Limitations can be inferred from the following rules:

1. Rules of Court

a. Rule 71, Section 3. Indirect Contempt to be Punished After Charge and Hearing. - After charge in
writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such
period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of
the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

xxx

(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court not
constituting direct contempt under Section 1 of this Rule;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice;

xxx

2. Code of Professional Responsibility

a. Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.

b. Canon 10, Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them to defeat the ends of justice.

c. Canon 12 - A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice.

d. Canon 12, Rule 12.04 -A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a
Judgment or misuse Court processes.

Respondent justifies his filing of administrative cases against certain judges, including complainant,
by relying on In Re: Almacen (Almacen).65 He claims that the mandate of the ruling laid down
in Almacen was to encourage lawyers' criticism of erring magistrates.66

In Almacen, however, it did not mandate but merely recognized the right of a lawyer, both as an
officer of the court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges.67 In addition, the Court therein emphasized that these
criticisms are subject to a condition, to wit:

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and
abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is
a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.68 [Emphasis supplied.]

Indubitably, the acts of respondent were in violation of his duty to observe and maintain the respect
due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and his duty to never seek to mislead the judge or
any judicial officer.69

In his last ditch attempt to escape liability, respondent apologized for not being more circumspect
with his remedies and choice of words. He admitted losing objectivity and becoming emotional while
pursuing the cases involving him and the CEFI. The Court, however, reiterates that a lawyer's duty,
is not to his client but primarily to the administration of justice. To that end, his client's success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to, and must always, be scrupulously observant of the law
and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the
pursuit of his devotion to his client's cause, is condemnable and unethical.70

For having violated the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath, respondent's conduct should be meted with a
commensurate penalty.

WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines - Board of Governors dated September 28, 2013. Accordingly, Atty. Ronaldo Antonio V.
Calayan is found GUILTY of violating The Lawyer's Oath and The Code of Professional
Responsibility and he is hereby ordered SUSPENDEDfrom the practice of law for two (2) years, with
a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a
more severe penalty.

Let copies of this decision be furnished the: (a) Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to
all courts throughout the country for their information and guidance; (b) the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines; and (c) the Office of the Bar Confidant. Let a copy of this decision be attached to the
personal records of the respondent.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. L-27654 February 18, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE

RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO,

vs.

VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY.

RESOLUTION

CASTRO, J.:

Before us is Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on
September 25, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is "a great injustice committed
against his client by this Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal
"peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he
continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the
sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In the same breath that he alludes to the classic
symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered by the
present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then vows to
argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent
injustice's committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were
committed must never be repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that

... a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the
undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any
time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may
retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession.

He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the aforementioned petition. Thus, on
September 26, 1967, the Manila Times published statements attributed to him, as follows:

Vicente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to expose the

tribunal's "unconstitutional and obnoxious" practice of arbitrarily denying petitions or
appeals without any reason.

Because of the tribunal's "short-cut justice," Almacen deplored, his client was
condemned to pay P120,000, without knowing why he lost the case.

xxx xxx xxx

There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this petition, "where our
Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who
ignore without reason their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations
of the Constitution with impunity.

xxx xxx xxx

 He expressed the hope that by divesting himself of his title by which he earns his
living, the present members of the Supreme Court "will become responsive to all
cases brought to its attention without discrimination, and will purge itself of those
unconstitutional and obnoxious "lack of merit" or "denied resolutions. (Emphasis
supplied)

Atty. Almacen's statement that

... our own Supreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas of
[sic] justice, who ignore their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity

was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila Chronicle of September 28,
1967. In connection therewith, Pacis commented that Atty. Almacen had "accused the high tribunal
of offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself," and that "his charge is one of the
constitutional bases for impeachment."

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio
H. Calero,1 in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The trial court, after due hearing,
rendered judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a copy of the decision.
Twenty days later, or on July 5, 1966, he moved for its reconsideration. He served on the adverse
counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion.
Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of
service," the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his
first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for
reconsideration to which he attached the required registry return card. This second motion for
reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal
motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on August 22, 1966, had already perfected the
appeal. Because the plaintiff interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the trial
court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

But the Court of Appeals, on the authority of this Court's decision in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.
vs. Batu Construction & Co., L-16636, June 24, 1965, dismissed the appeal, in the following words:

Upon consideration of the motion dated March 27, 1967, filed by plaintiff-appellee
praying that the appeal be dismissed, and of the opposition thereto filed by
defendant-appellant; the Court RESOLVED TO DISMISS, as it hereby dismisses, the
appeal, for the reason that the motion for reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 (pp. 90-
113, printed record on appeal) does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing
thereof and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper (Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc.
vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-16636, June 24, 1965), which did not
interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, consequently, the appeal was
perfected out of time.

Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. is not
decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in
Support of Motion for Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A.
Venturanza, L-20417, decided by this Court on May 30, 1966, as the applicable case. Again, the
Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration, thus:
 Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May 9, 1967 and the
supplement thereto of the same date filed by defendant- appellant, praying for
reconsideration of the resolution of May 8, 1967, dismissing the appeal.

Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between this case and
that of Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction & Co., G.R. No. L-
16636, June 24, 1965, relied upon by this Court in its resolution of May 8, 1967.
Appellant further states that in the latest case, Republic vs. Venturanza, L-20417,
May 30, 1966, decided by the Supreme Court concerning the question raised by
appellant's motion, the ruling is contrary to the doctrine laid down in the Manila
Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. case.

There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co.

In the case of Republic vs. Venturanza, the resolution denying the motion to dismiss
the appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised herein was issued on
November 26, 1962, which was much earlier than the date of promulgation of the
decision in the Manila Surety Case, which was June 24, 1965. Further, the resolution
in the Venturanza case was interlocutory and the Supreme Court issued it "without
prejudice to appellee's restoring the point in the brief." In the main decision in said
case (Rep. vs. Venturanza the Supreme Court passed upon the issue sub silencio
presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the resolution of November 26,
1962, one of which is that in the Manila Surety and Fidelity case. Therefore Republic
vs. Venturanza is no authority on the matter in issue.

Atty. Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari. We refused to take the case, and by minute
resolution denied the appeal. Denied shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as
his petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration and for extension of time. Entry of
judgment was made on September 8, 1967. Hence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by
him after the Said date was ordered expunged from the records.

It was at this juncture that Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his "Petition to
Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," already adverted to — a pleading that is interspersed from
beginning to end with the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remarks
hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its individual members, a behavior that is as
unprecedented as it is unprofessional.

Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated September 28, 1967 to withhold action on his petition
until he shall have actually surrendered his certificate. Patiently, we waited for him to make good his
proffer. No word came from him. So he was reminded to turn over his certificate, which he had
earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so that this Court could act on his petition. To said reminder
he manifested "that he has no pending petition in connection with Case G.R. No. L-27654, Calero
vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now final and executory;" that this Court's September 28, 1967
resolution did not require him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since his offer was not
accepted, he "chose to pursue the negative act."

In the exercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for contumely and gross
misconduct, this Court on November 17, 1967 resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him." Denying the charges contained in the November
17 resolution, he asked for permission "to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him ... in an open and public hearing." This Court resolved (on December 7) "to
require Atty. Almacen to state, within five days from notice hereof, his reasons for such request,
otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed waived and incident submitted for decision." To this
resolution he manifested that since this Court is "the complainant, prosecutor and Judge," he
preferred to be heard and to answer questions "in person and in an open and public hearing" so that
this Court could observe his sincerity and candor. He also asked for leave to file a written
explanation "in the event this Court has no time to hear him in person." To give him the ampliest
latitude for his defense, he was allowed to file a written explanation and thereafter was heard in oral
argument.

His written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers -no apology. Far from
being contrite Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeats his jeremiad of lamentations, this time
embellishing it with abundant sarcasm and innuendo. Thus:

At the start, let me quote passages from the Holy Bible, Chapter 7, St. Matthew: —

"Do not judge, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment
you judge, you shall be judged, and with what measure you measure,
it shall be measured to you. But why dost thou see the speck in thy
brother's eye, and yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye? Or
how can thou say to thy brother, "Let me cast out the speck from thy
eye"; and behold, there is a beam in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite,
first cast out the beam from thy own eye, and then thou wilt see
clearly to cast out the speck from thy brother's eyes."

"Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, even to do you also to
them: for this is the Law and the Prophets."

xxx xxx xxx

Your respondent has no intention of disavowing the statements mentioned in his

petition. On the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he stated, compatible with his
lawyer's oath that he will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.
But he vigorously DENY under oath that the underscored statements contained in
the CHARGE are insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the
individual members of the Court; that they tend to bring the entire Court, without
justification, into disrepute; and constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the
noble profession of law.

xxx xxx xxx

Respondent stands four-square that his statement is borne by TRUTH and has been
asserted with NO MALICE BEFORE AND AFTER THOUGHT but mainly motivated
with the highest interest of justice that in the particular case of our client, the
members have shown callousness to our various pleas for JUSTICE, our pleadings
will bear us on this matter, ...

xxx xxx xxx

To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for charity,

generosity, fairness, understanding, sympathy and above all in the highest interest of
JUSTICE, — what did we get from this COURT? One word, DENIED, with all its
 hardiness and insensibility. That was the unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas
and prayers, in simple word, it is plain callousness towards our particular case.

xxx xxx xxx

Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that
notwithstanding the violation of the Constitution, you remained unpunished, this
Court in the reverse order of natural things, is now in the attempt to inflict punishment
on your respondent for acts he said in good faith.

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. Now that your respondent is
given the opportunity to face you, he reiterates the same statement with emphasis,
DID YOU? Sir. Is this. the way of life in the Philippines today, that even our own
President, said: — "the story is current, though nebulous ,is to its truth, it is still being
circulated that justice in the Philippines today is not what it is used to be before the
war. There are those who have told me frankly and brutally that justice is a
commodity, a marketable commodity in the Philippines."

xxx xxx xxx

We condemn the SIN, not the SINNER. We detest the ACTS, not the ACTOR. We
attack the decision of this Court, not the members. ... We were provoked. We were
compelled by force of necessity. We were angry but we waited for the finality of the
decision. We waited until this Court has performed its duties. We never interfered nor
obstruct in the performance of their duties. But in the end, after seeing that the
Constitution has placed finality on your judgment against our client and sensing that
you have not performed your duties with "circumspection, carefulness, confidence
and wisdom", your Respondent rise to claim his God given right to speak the truth
and his Constitutional right of free speech.

xxx xxx xxx

The INJUSTICES which we have attributed to this Court and the further violations we
sought to be prevented is impliedly shared by our President. ... .

xxx xxx xxx

What has been abhored and condemned, are the very things that were applied to us. Recalling
Madam Roland's famous apostrophe during the French revolution, "O Liberty, what crimes are
committed in thy name", we may dare say, "O JUSTICE, what technicalities are committed in thy
name' or more appropriately, 'O JUSTICE, what injustices are committed in thy name."

xxx xxx xxx

We must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses, but who
would correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of last resort. A strong
public opinion must be generated so as to curtail these abuses.

xxx xxx xxx

 The phrase, Justice is blind is symbolize in paintings that can be found in all courts
and government offices. We have added only two more symbols, that it is also deaf
and dumb. Deaf in the sense that no members of this Court has ever heard our cries
for charity, generosity, fairness, understanding sympathy and for justice; dumb in the
sense, that inspite of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to give us reasons
why our appeal has been DENIED, not one word was spoken or given ... We refer to
no human defect or ailment in the above statement. We only describe the.
impersonal state of things and nothing more.

xxx xxx xxx

As we have stated, we have lost our faith and confidence in the members of this
Court and for which reason we offered to surrender our lawyer's certificate, IN
TRUST ONLY. Because what has been lost today may be regained tomorrow. As the
offer was intended as our self-imposed sacrifice, then we alone may decide as to
when we must end our self-sacrifice. If we have to choose between forcing ourselves
to have faith and confidence in the members of the Court but disregard our
Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the members of
this Court, there is no choice, we must uphold the latter.

But overlooking, for the nonce, the vituperative chaff which he claims is not intended as a studied
disrespect to this Court, let us examine the grain of his grievances.

He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. We are quite aware of the
criticisms2 expressed against this Court's practice of rejecting petitions by minute resolutions. We have
been asked to do away with it, to state the facts and the law, and to spell out the reasons for denial. We
have given this suggestion very careful thought. For we know the abject frustration of a lawyer who
tediously collates the facts and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments, only to have
his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial. Truth to tell, however, most petitions rejected by this
Court are utterly frivolous and ought never to have been lodged at all.3 The rest do exhibit a first-
impression cogency, but fail to, withstand critical scrutiny. By and large, this Court has been generous in
giving due course to petitions for certiorari.

Be this as it may, were we to accept every case or write a full opinion for every petition we reject, we
would be unable to carry out effectively the burden placed upon us by the Constitution. The proper
role of the Supreme Court, as Mr. Chief Justice Vinson of the U.S. Supreme Court has defined it, is
to decide "only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate
importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved." Pertinent here is the observation of Mr.
Justice Frankfurter in Maryland vs. Baltimore Radio Show, 94 L. ed 562, 566:

A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition
different reasons may read different justices to the same result ... .

Since there are these conflicting, and, to the uninformed, even confusing reasons for
denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that the Court
indicate its reasons for denial. Practical considerations preclude. In order that the
Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed
the control of the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion. During the
last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively, on their
merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively, 1,260, 1,105,1,189
petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court is to do its work it would not be
feasible to give reasons, however brief, for refusing to take these cases. The tune
 that would be required is prohibitive. Apart from the fact that as already indicated
different reasons not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding
that a particular case at a particular time makes review undesirable.

Six years ago, in Novino, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 1,21098, May 31, 1963 (60 O.G. 8099),
this Court, through the then Chief Justice Cesar Bengzon, articulated its considered view on this
matter. There, the petitioners counsel urged that a "lack of merit" resolution violates Section 12 of
Article VIII of the Constitution. Said Chief Justice Bengzon:

In connection with identical short resolutions, the same question has been raised
before; and we held that these "resolutions" are not "decisions" within the above
constitutional requirement. They merely hold that the petition for review should not be
entertained in view of the provisions of Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; and even
ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it. It should be remembered that a
petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of
sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the court's denial.
For one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals'
opinion.

By the way, this mode of disposal has — as intended — helped the Court in
alleviating its heavy docket; it was patterned after the practice of the U.S. Supreme
Court, wherein petitions for review are often merely ordered "dismissed".

We underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions for certiorari from the Court of
Appeals have had the benefit of appellate review. Hence, the need for compelling reasons to
buttress such petitions if this Court is to be moved into accepting them. For it is axiomatic that the
supervisory jurisdiction vested upon this Court over the Court of Appeals is not intended to give
every losing party another hearing. This axiom is implied in sec. 4 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
which recites:

Review of Court of Appeals' decision discretionary.—A review is not a matter of right

but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and
important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully
measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be
considered:

(a) When the Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance, not theretofore
determined by the Supreme Court, nor has decided it in a way probably not in accord
with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court;

(b) When the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by the lower
court, as to call for the exercise of the power of supervision.

Recalling Atty. Almacen's petition for review, we found, upon a thoroughgoing examination of the
pleadings. and records, that the Court of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of
his appeal in the light of the law and applicable decisions of this Court. Far from straying away from
the "accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this
Court in a number of decisions. There was, therefore, no need for this Court to exercise its
supervisory power.
As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as 1941, Atty. Almacen knew — or
ought to have known — that for a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of
appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party (which he did),
but also notify the adverse party of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). This
rule was unequivocally articulated in Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Batu Construction & Co., supra:

The written notice referred to evidently is prescribed for motions in general by Rule
15, Sections 4 and 5 (formerly Rule 26), which provides that such notice shall state
the time, and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the Parties concerned at
least three days in advance. And according to Section 6 of the same Rule no motion
shall be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice. Indeed it has been held
that in such a case the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper (Philippine
National Bank v. Damasco, I,18638, Feb. 28, 1963; citing Manakil v. Revilla, 42 Phil.
81; Roman Catholic Bishop of Lipa v. Municipality of Unisan, 41 Phil. 866; and
Director of Lands vs. Sanz, 45 Phil. 117). The reason is obvious: Unless the movant
sets the time and place of hearing the Court would have no way to determine
whether that party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him
on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he
may file his reply or opposition.

If Atty. Almacen failed to move the appellate court to review the lower court's judgment, he has only
himself to blame. His own negligence caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which,
incidentally, is not a matter of right. To shift away from himself the consequences of his
carelessness, he looked for a "whipping boy." But he made sure that he assumed the posture of a
martyr, and, in offering to surrender his professional certificate, he took the liberty of vilifying this
Court and inflicting his exacerbating rancor on the members thereof. It would thus appear that there
is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts.

Nonetheless we gave this unprecedented act of Atty. Almacen the most circumspect consideration.
We know that it is natural for a lawyer to express his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he
sanguinely believes to be a meritorious case. That is why lawyers are given 'wide latitude to differ
with, and voice their disapproval of, not only the courts' rulings but, also the manner in which they
are handed down.

Moreover, every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of public officers.
This right is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority,4 or that it is
articulated by a lawyer.5 Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a concluded
litigation,6 because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public consumption.7 "Our decisions
and all our official actions," said the Supreme Court of Nebraska,8 "are public property, and the press and
the people have the undoubted right to comment on them, criticize and censure them as they see fit.
Judicial officers, like other public servants, must answer for their official actions before the chancery of
public opinion."

The likely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attack on one's integrity, competence
and honesty, with "imminent danger to the administration of justice," is the reason why courts have
been loath to inflict punishment on those who assail their actuations.9 This danger lurks especially in
such a case as this where those who Sit as members of an entire Court are themselves collectively the
aggrieved parties.

Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously assails their
actuations. 10 For courageous and fearless advocates are the strands that weave durability into the
tapestry of justice. Hence, as citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to exercise
the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and
judges. 11

Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. 12 They should and expect critical evaluation of their
performance. 13 For like the executive and the legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of
democratic society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is expected to serve.

Well-recognized therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.
The reason is that

An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place accorded to him in
the administration of justice, his right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the
courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of
the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. (In re Ades, 6 F Supp. 487)
.

Criticism of the courts has, indeed, been an important part of the traditional work of the bar. In the
prosecution of appeals, he points out the errors of lower courts. In written for law journals he
dissects with detachment the doctrinal pronouncements of courts and fearlessly lays bare for -all to
see that flaws and inconsistence" of the doctrines (Hill v. Lyman, 126 NYS 2d 286). As aptly stated
by Chief Justice Sharswood in Ex Parte Steinman, 40 Am. Rep. 641:

No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expansion or

publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than
members of the bar. They have the best opportunities for observing and forming a
correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. ... To say that an
attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account
and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood, by the judge or judges whom he
may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be
entertained. ... .

Hence, as a citizen and as Officer of the court a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but
also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he
"professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not
expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am. Dee. 657, 665).

Above all others, the members of the bar have the beat Opportunity to become
conversant with the character and efficiency of our judges. No class is less likely to
abuse the privilege, as no other class has as great an interest in the preservation of
an able and upright bench. (State Board of Examiners in Law v. Hart, 116 N.W. 212,
216)

To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and judges is to seal the lips of
those in the best position to give advice and who might consider it their duty to speak disparagingly.
"Under such a rule," so far as the bar is concerned, "the merits of a sitting judge may be rehearsed,
but as to his demerits there must be profound silence." (State v. Circuit Court, 72 N.W. 196)

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the One hand,
and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is Such a misconduct that subjects a
lawyer to disciplinary action.

For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux
and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more
basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He
vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity ... to the courts; 14 and the Rules of Court
constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
officers." 15 The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude,
not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance."

As Mr. Justice Field puts it:

... the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by express
declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to the Bar, is not merely
to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect
due to courts of justice and judicial officers. This obligation is not discharged by
merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes
abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward
judges personally for their judicial acts. (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647, 652)

The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly
administration of justice. Hence, in the — assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers — even those
gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers.

The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the
judge, and it may tax his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he regards
as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect are as necessary to the orderly
administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of an army. The decisions of
the judge must be obeyed, because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the
bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission. (In Re
Scouten, 40 Atl. 481)

We concede that a lawyer may think highly of his intellectual endowment That is his
privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. That is his
misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into
a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-
honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right. (Per Justice Sanchez
in Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, L-22979. June 26, 1967)

In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, statements made by an attorney in private conversations
or communications 16 or in the course of a political, campaign, 17 if couched in insulting language as to
bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.

Of fundamental pertinence at this juncture is an examination of relevant parallel precedents.

1. Admitting that a "judge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticism of
his conduct in office," the Supreme Court of Florida in State v. Calhoon, 102 So. 2d 604, 608,
nevertheless declared that "any conduct of a lawyer which brings into scorn and disrepute the
administration of justice demands condemnation and the application of appropriate penalties,"
adding that:

It would be contrary to, every democratic theory to hold that a judge or a court is
beyond bona fide comments and criticisms which do not exceed the bounds of
decency and truth or which are not aimed at. the destruction of public confidence in
the judicial system as such. However, when the likely impairment of the
administration of justice the direct product of false and scandalous accusations then
the rule is otherwise.

2. In In Re Glenn, 130 N.W. 2d 672, an attorney was suspended for putting out and circulating a
leaflet entitled "JUSTICE??? IN OTUMWA," which accused a municipal judge of having committed
judicial error, of being so prejudiced as to deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of being subject
to the control of a group of city officials. As a prefatory statement he wrote: "They say that Justice is
BLIND, but it took Municipal Judge Willard to prove that it is also DEAF and DUMB!" The court did
not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further than the accused, as a lawyer, had a right to
do.

The entire publication evidences a desire on the part Of the accused to belittle and
besmirch the court and to bring it into disrepute with the general public.

3. In In Re Humphrey, 163 Pac. 60, the Supreme Court of California affirmed the two-year
suspension of an attorney who published a circular assailing a judge who at that time was a
candidate for re-election to a judicial office. The circular which referred to two decisions of the judge
concluded with a statement that the judge "used his judicial office to enable -said bank to keep that
money." Said the court:

We are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the criticism
members of the bar may make regarding the capacity, impartiality, or integrity of the
courts, even though it extends to the deliberate publication by the attorney capable of
correct reasoning of baseless insinuations against the intelligence and integrity of the
highest courts. See State Board, etc. v. Hart. 116 N.W. 212, 17 LRA (N.S.) 585, 15
Ann Cas 197 and note: Ex parte Steinman 95 Pac. 220, 40 Am. Rep. 637. In the first
case mentioned it was observed, for instance:

"It may be (although we do not so decide) that a libelous publication

by an attorney, directed against a judicial officer, could be so vile and
of such a nature as to justify the disbarment of its author."

Yet the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of graver character than
those made by the respondent here. But, in our view, the better rule is that which
requires of those who are permitted to enjoy the privilege of practicing law the
strictest observance at all times of the principles of truth, honesty and fairness,
especially in their criticism of the courts, to the end that the public confidence in the
due administration of justice be upheld, and the dignity and usefulness of the courts
be maintained. In re Collins, 81 Pac. 220.

4. In People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. v. Metzen, 123 N.E. 734, an attorney, representing a woman
who had been granted a divorce, attacked the judge who set aside the decree on bill of review. He
wrote the judge a threatening letter and gave the press the story of a proposed libel suit against the
judge and others. The letter began:
 Unless the record in In re Petersen v. Petersen is cleared up so that my name is
protected from the libel, lies, and perjury committed in the cases involved, I shall be
compelled to resort to such drastic action as the law allows and the case warrants.

Further, he said: "However let me assure you I do not intend to allow such dastardly work to go
unchallenged," and said that he was engaged in dealing with men and not irresponsible political
manikins or appearances of men. Ordering the attorney's disbarment, the Supreme Court of Illinois
declared:

... Judges are not exempt from just criticism, and whenever there is proper ground for
serious complaint against a judge, it is the right and duty of a lawyer to submit his
grievances to the proper authorities, but the public interest and the administration of
the law demand that the courts should have the confidence and respect of the
people. Unjust criticism, insulting language, and offensive conduct toward the judges
personally by attorneys, who are officers of the court, which tend to bring the courts
and the law into disrepute and to destroy public confidence in their integrity, cannot
be permitted. The letter written to the judge was plainly an attempt to intimidate and
influence him in the discharge of judicial functions, and the bringing of the
unauthorized suit, together with the write-up in the Sunday papers, was intended and
calculated to bring the court into disrepute with the public.

5. In a public speech, a Rhode Island lawyer accused the courts of the state of being influenced by
corruption and greed, saying that the seats of the Supreme Court were bartered. It does not appear
that the attorney had criticized any of the opinions or decisions of the Court. The lawyer was charged
with unprofessional conduct, and was ordered suspended for a period of two years. The Court said:

A calumny of that character, if believed, would tend to weaken the authority of the
court against whose members it was made, bring its judgments into contempt,
undermine its influence as an unbiased arbiter of the people's right, and interfere with
the administration of justice. ...

Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not, under the guise of
disciplinary proceedings, deprive him of any part of that freedom of speech which he
possesses as a citizen. The acts and decisions of the courts of this state, in cases
that have reached final determination, are not exempt from fair and honest comment
and criticism. It is only when an attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism
that he will be held responsible for an abuse of his liberty of speech. We well
understand that an independent bar, as well as independent court, is always a
vigilant defender of civil rights. In Re Troy, 111 Atl. 723. 725.

6. In In Re Rockmore, 111 NYS 879, an attorney was suspended for six months for submitting to an
appellate court an affidavit reflecting upon the judicial integrity of the court from which the appeal
was taken. Such action, the Court said, constitutes unprofessional conduct justifying suspension
from practice, notwithstanding that he fully retracted and withdrew the statements, and asserted that
the affidavit was the result of an impulse caused by what he considered grave injustice. The Court
said:

We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the profession of
criticising the motives and integrity of judicial officers in the discharge of their duties,
and thereby reflecting on the administration of justice and creating the impression
that judicial action is influenced by corrupt or improper motives. Every attorney of this
court, as well as every other citizen, has the right and it is his duty, to submit charges
 to the authorities in whom is vested the power to remove judicial officers for any
conduct or act of a judicial officer that tends to show a violation of his duties, or would
justify an inference that he is false to his trust, or has improperly administered the
duties devolved upon him; and such charges to the tribunal, if based upon
reasonable inferences, will be encouraged, and the person making them
protected. ... While we recognize the inherent right of an attorney in a case decided
against him, or the right of the Public generally, to criticise the decisions of the
courts, or the reasons announced for them, the habit of criticising the motives of
judicial officers in the performance of their official duties, when the proceeding is not
against the officers whose acts or motives are criticised, tends to subvert the
confidence of the community in the courts of justice and in the administration of
justice; and when such charges are made by officers of the courts, who are bound by
their duty to protect the administration of justice, the attorney making such charges is
guilty of professional misconduct.

7. In In Re Mitchell, 71 So. 467, a lawyer published this statement:

I accepted the decision in this case, however, with patience, barring possible
temporary observations more or less vituperative and finally concluded, that, as my
clients were foreigners, it might have been expecting too much to look for a decision
in their favor against a widow residing here.

The Supreme Court of Alabama declared that:

... the expressions above set out, not only transcend the bounds of propriety and
privileged criticism, but are an unwarranted attack, direct, or by insinuation and
innuendo, upon the motives and integrity of this court, and make out a prima
facie case of improper conduct upon the part of a lawyer who holds a license from
this court and who is under oath to demean himself with all good fidelity to the court
as well as to his client.

The charges, however, were dismissed after the attorney apologized to the Court.

8. In State ex rel. Dabney v. Breckenridge, 258 Pac. 747, an attorney published in a newspaper an
article in which he impugned the motives of the court and its members to try a case, charging the
court of having arbitrarily and for a sinister purpose undertaken to suspend the writ of habeas
corpus. The Court suspended the respondent for 30 days, saying that:

The privileges which the law gives to members of the bar is one most subversive of
the public good, if the conduct of such members does not measure up to the
requirements of the law itself, as well as to the ethics of the profession. ...

The right of free speech and free discussion as to judicial determination is of prime
importance under our system and ideals of government. No right thinking man would
concede for a moment that the best interest to private citizens, as well as to public
officials, whether he labors in a judicial capacity or otherwise, would be served by
denying this right of free speech to any individual. But such right does not have as its
corollary that members of the bar who are sworn to act honestly and honorably both
with their client and with the courts where justice is administered, if administered at
all, could ever properly serve their client or the public good by designedly misstating
facts or carelessly asserting the law. Truth and honesty of purpose by members of
the bar in such discussion is necessary. The health of a municipality is none the less
 impaired by a polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a community
toward the judiciary by the filthy wanton, and malignant misuse of members of the
bar of the confidence the public, through its duly established courts, has reposed in
them to deal with the affairs of the private individual, the protection of whose rights
he lends his strength and money to maintain the judiciary. For such conduct on the
part of the members of the bar the law itself demands retribution — not the court.

9. In Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v. Philbrook, 170 Pac. 440, the filing of an affidavit by an attorney in
a pending action using in respect to the several judges the terms criminal corrupt, and wicked
conspiracies,," "criminal confederates," "colossal and confident insolence," "criminal prosecution,"
"calculated brutality," "a corrupt deadfall," and similar phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming
of a member of the bar, and the name of the erring lawyer was ordered stricken from the roll of
attorneys.

10. In State Board of Examiners v. Hart, 116 N.W. 215, the erring attorney claimed that greater
latitude should be allowed in case of criticism of cases finally adjudicated than in those pending. This
lawyer wrote a personal letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Minnesota impugning
both the intelligence and the integrity of the said Chief Justice and his associates in the decisions of
certain appeals in which he had been attorney for the defeated litigants. The letters were published
in a newspaper. One of the letters contained this paragraph:

You assigned it (the property involved) to one who has no better right to it than the
burglar to his plunder. It seems like robbing a widow to reward a fraud, with the court
acting as a fence, or umpire, watchful and vigilant that the widow got no undue
advantage. ... The point is this: Is a proper motive for the decisions discoverable,
short of assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or a constipation of morals
and faithlessness to duty? If the state bar association, or a committee chosen from
its rank, or the faculty of the University Law School, aided by the researches of its
hundreds of bright, active students, or if any member of the court, or any other
person, can formulate a statement of a correct motive for the decision, which shall
not require fumigation before it is stated, and quarantine after it is made, it will gratify
every right-minded citizen of the state to read it.

The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in ordering the suspension of the attorney for six months,
delivered its opinion as follows:

The question remains whether the accused was guilty of professional misconduct in
sending to the Chief Justice the letter addressed to him. This was done, as we have
found, for the very purpose of insulting him and the other justices of this court; and
the insult was so directed to the Chief Justice personally because of acts done by
him and his associates in their official capacity. Such a communication, so made,
could never subserve any good purpose. Its only effect in any case would be to
gratify the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the officers so assailed. It would
not and could not ever enlighten the public in regard to their judicial capacity or
integrity. Nor was it an exercise by the accused of any constitutional right, or of any
privilege which any reputable attorney, uninfluenced by passion, could ever have any
occasion or desire to assert. No judicial officer, with due regard to his position, can
resent such an insult otherwise than by methods sanctioned by law; and for any
words, oral or written, however abusive, vile, or indecent, addressed secretly to the
judge alone, he can have no redress in any action triable by a jury. "The sending of a
libelous communication or libelous matter to the person defamed does not constitute
an actionable publication." 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 1017. In these
respects the sending by the accused of this letter to the Chief Justice was wholly
different from his other acts charged in the accusation, and, as we have said, wholly
different principles are applicable thereto.

The conduct of the accused was in every way discreditable; but so far as he
exercised the rights of a citizen, guaranteed by the Constitution and sanctioned by
considerations of public policy, to which reference has been made, he was immune,
as we hold, from the penalty here sought to be enforced. To that extent his rights as
a citizen were paramount to the obligation which he had assumed as an officer of this
court. When, however he proceeded and thus assailed the Chief Justice personally,
he exercised no right which the court can recognize, but, on the contrary, willfully
violated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and judicial officers. "This
obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in
open court, but it includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and
offensive conduct toward the judges personally for their official acts." Bradley v.
Fisher, 13 Wall. (U.S.) 355, 20 L. Ed. 646. And there appears to be no distinction, as
regards the principle involved, between the indignity of an assault by an attorney
upon a judge, induced by his official act, and a personal insult for like cause by
written or spoken words addressed to the judge in his chambers or at his home or
elsewhere. Either act constitutes misconduct wholly different from criticism of judicial
acts addressed or spoken to others. The distinction made is, we think entirely logical
and well sustained by authority. It was recognized in Ex parte McLeod supra. While
the court in that case, as has been shown, fully sustained the right of a citizen to
criticise rulings of the court in actions which are ended, it held that one might be
summarily punished for assaulting a judicial officer, in that case a commissioner of
the court, for his rulings in a cause wholly concluded. "Is it in the power of any
person," said the court, "by insulting or assaulting the judge because of official acts, if
only the assailant restrains his passion until the judge leaves the building, to compel
the judge to forfeit either his own self-respect to the regard of the people by tame
submission to the indignity, or else set in his own person the evil example of
punishing the insult by taking the law in his own hands? ... No high-minded, manly
man would hold judicial office under such conditions."

That a communication such as this, addressed to the Judge personally, constitutes

professional delinquency for which a professional punishment may be imposed, has
been directly decided. "An attorney who, after being defeated in a case, wrote a
personal letter to the trial justice, complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon his
integrity as a justice, is guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court."
Matter of Manheim 133 App. Div. 136, 99 N.Y. Supp. 87 The same is held in Re
Griffin (City Ct.) 1 N.Y. 7 and in Re Wilkes (City Ct.) 3 N.Y. In the latter case it
appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed letter to a justice of the
City Court of New York, in which it was stated, in reference to his decision: "It is not
law; neither is it common sense. The result is I have been robbed of 80." And it was
decided that, while such conduct was not a contempt under the state, the matter
should be "called to the attention of the Supreme Court, which has power to
discipline the attorney." "If," says the court, "counsel learned in the law are permitted
by writings leveled at the heads of judges, to charge them with ignorance, with unjust
rulings, and with robbery, either as principals or accessories, it will not be long before
the general public may feel that they may redress their fancied grievances in like
manner, and thus the lot of a judge will be anything but a happy one, and the
administration of justice will fall into bad repute."
 The recent case of Johnson v. State (Ala.) 44 South. 671, was in this respect much
the same as the case at bar. The accused, an attorney at law, wrote and mailed a
letter to the circuit judge, which the latter received by due course of mail, at his
home, while not holding court, and which referred in insulting terms to the conduct of
the judge in a cause wherein the accused had been one of the attorneys. For this it
was held that the attorney was rightly disbarred in having "willfully failed to maintain
respect due to him [the judge] as a judicial officer, and thereby breached his oath as
an attorney." As recognizing the same principle, and in support of its application to
the facts of this case, we cite the following: Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall (U.S.) 364, 19 L.
Ed. 214; Beene v. State, 22 Ark. 149; Commonwealth v. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas.
408; People v. Green, 7 Colo 237, 244, 3 Pac. 65, 374, 49 Am. Rep. 351; Smith's
Appeal, 179 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 134; Scouten's Appeal, 186 Pa. 270, Atl. 481.

Our conclusion is that the charges against the accused have been so far sustained
as to make it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be sufficient lesson to him
and a suitable warning to others. ...

11. In Cobb v. United States, 172 F. 641, the court affirmed a lawyer's suspension for 18 months for
publishing a letter in a newspaper in which he accused a judge of being under the sinister influence
of a gang that had paralyzed him for two years.

12. In In Re Graves, 221 Pac. 411, the court held that an attorney's unjustifiable attack against the
official acts and decisions of a judge constitutes "moral turpitude." There, the attorney was disbarred
for criticising not only the judge, but his decisions in general claiming that the judge was dishonest in
reaching his decisions and unfair in his general conduct of a case.

13. In In Re Doss, 12 N.E. 2d 659, an attorney published newspaper articles after the trial of cases,
criticising the court in intemperate language. The invariable effect of this sort of propaganda, said the
court, is to breed disrespect for courts and bring the legal profession into disrepute with the public,
for which reason the lawyer was disbarred.

14. In State v. Grimes, 354 Pac. 2d 108, an attorney, dissatisfied with the loss of a case, prepared
over a period of years vicious attacks on jurists. The Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that his
acts involved such gross moral turpitude as to make him unfit as a member of the bar. His
disbarment was ordered, even though he expressed an intention to resign from the bar.

The teaching derived from the above disquisition and impressive affluence of judicial
pronouncements is indubitable: Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of
the courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the
permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into
disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice,
constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with disbarment or other lesser
appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the prerogatives inherent
in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity.

Of course, rarely have we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of unwarranted outbursts of
counsel such as those catalogued in the above-cited jurisprudence. Cases of comparable nature
have generally been disposed of under the power of courts to punish for contempt which, although
resting on different bases and calculated to attain a different end, nevertheless illustrates that
universal abhorrence of such condemnable practices.

A perusal of the more representative of these instances may afford enlightenment.

1. In Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724, where counsel branded the denial of his motion for
reconsideration as "absolutely erroneous and constituting an outrage to the rigths of the petitioner
Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls," this Court, although
conceding that

It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his
client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is not,
and never will be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to intimidation or
proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts requires.
The reason for this is that respect for the courts guarantees the stability of their
institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would be resting on a very shaky
foundation,

found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as, in its opinion, the statements made disclosed

... an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt
of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged with no less than having
proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the rights to the parties, and 'of the
untoward consequences, or with having abused its power and mocked and flouted
the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's client ... .

2. In In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, counsel, a senator and the author of the Press Freedom Law, reaching
to, the imprisonment for contempt of one Angel Parazo, who, invoking said law, refused to divulge
the source of a news item carried in his paper, caused to be published in i local newspaper a
statement expressing his regret "that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said
law, but it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency or narrow mindedness of the majority
of its members," and his belief that "In the wake of so many blunders and injustices deliberately
committed during these last years, ... the only remedy to put an end to go much evil, is to change the
members of the Supreme Court," which tribunal he denounced as "a constant peril to liberty and
democracy" and "a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of justice of those memorable times of
Cayetano Arellano, Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor
and glory of the Philippine Judiciary." He there also announced that one of the first measures he
would introduce in then forthcoming session of Congress would have for its object the complete
reorganization of the Supreme Court. Finding him in contempt, despite his avowals of good faith and
his invocation of the guarantee of free speech, this Court declared:

But in the above-quoted written statement which he caused to be published in the

press, the respondent does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the
Parazo case, which was then and still is pending consideration by this Court upon
petition of Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court
with the presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the
members, reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the number of Justices from
eleven, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case,
who according to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to
influence the final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct
the administration of justice. But the respondent also attacks the honesty and
integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the Justices of this Court
into disrepute and degrading the administration. of justice ... .

To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing
deliberately so many blunders and injustices, that is to say, that it has been deciding
in favor of Que party knowing that the law and justice is on the part of the adverse
 party and not on the one in whose favor the decision was rendered, in many cases
decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of
the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and
consequently to lower ,or degrade the administration of justice by this Court. The
Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwark to which
the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grievances or protection of their
rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the
honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot
expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands,
and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar and an
officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold the
dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he
has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which
without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation.

Significantly, too, the Court therein hastened to emphasize that

... an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in

his conduct and communication to the courts; he may be removed from office or
stricken from the roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct (17 L.R.A.
[N.S.], 586, 594.)

3. In Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: In re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al.,
supra, where counsel charged this Court with having "repeatedly fallen" into ,the pitfall of blindly
adhering to its previous "erroneous" pronouncements, "in disregard of the law on jurisdiction" of the
Court of Industrial Relations, our condemnation of counsel's misconduct was unequivocal.
Articulating the sentiments of the Court, Mr. Justice Sanchez stressed:

As we look back at the language (heretofore quoted) employed in the motion for
reconsideration, implications there are which inescapably arrest attention. It speaks
of one pitfall into which this Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the jurisdiction of
the Court of Industrial Relations comes into question. That pitfall is the tendency of
this Court to rely on its own pronouncements in disregard of the law on jurisdiction. It
makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of this Court, blindly adhere to earlier
rulings without as much as making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent
statute governing the jurisdiction of the industrial court. The plain import of all these
is that this Court is so patently inept that in determining the jurisdiction of the
industrial court, it has committed error and continuously repeated that error to the
point of perpetuation. It pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to the line
drawn by the law on jurisdictional boundaries. Implicit in the quoted statements is
that the pronouncements of this Court on the jurisdiction of the industrial court are
not entitled to respect. Those statements detract much from the dignity of and
respect due this Court. They bring into question the capability of the members — and
some former members of this Court to render justice. The second paragraph quoted
yields a tone of sarcasm which counsel labelled as "so called" the "rule against
splitting of jurisdiction."

Similar thoughts and sentiments have been expressed in other cases 18 which, in the interest of
brevity, need not now be reviewed in detail.
Of course, a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases — all of them involved
contumacious statements made in pleadings filed pending litigation. So that, in line with the doctrinal
rule that the protective mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous remarks
or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case and not after the conclusion
thereof, 19 Atty. Almacen would now seek to sidestep the thrust of a contempt charge by his studied
emphasis that the remarks for which he is now called upon to account were made only after this Court
had written finis to his appeal. This is of no moment.

The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated, has lost much of its vitality.
For sometime, this was the prevailing view in this jurisdiction. The first stir for a modification thereof,
however, came when, in People vs. Alarcon, 20 the then Chief Justice Manuel V. Moran dissented with
the holding of the majority, speaking thru Justice Jose P. Laurel, which upheld the rule above-adverted to.
A complete disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in In re Brillantes, 21 a contempt
proceeding, where the editor of the Manila Guardian was adjudged in contempt for publishing an editorial
which asserted that the 1944 Bar Examinations were conducted in a farcical manner after the question of
the validity of the said examinations had been resolved and the case closed. Virtually, this was an
adoption of the view expressed by Chief Justice Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to the effect that them
may still be contempt by publication even after a case has been terminated. Said Chief Justice Moran
in Alarcon:

A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in

administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding, constitutes criminal contempt
which is 'summarily punishable by courts. A publication which tends to degrade the
courts and to destroy public confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in
any way into disrepute, constitutes likewise criminal contempt, and is equally
punishable by courts. What is sought, in the first kind of contempt, to be shielded
against the influence of newspaper comments, is the all-important duty of the courts
to administer justice in the decision of a pending case. In the second kind of
contempt, the punitive hand of justice is extended to vindicate the courts from any act
or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor or to destroy public confidence in
them. In the first there is no contempt where there is no action pending, as there is
no decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper publication. In
the second, the contempt exists, with or without a pending case, as what is sought to
be protected is the court itself and its dignity. Courts would lose their utility if public
confidence in them is destroyed.

Accordingly, no comfort is afforded Atty. Almacen by the circumstance that his statements and
actuations now under consideration were made only after the judgment in his client's appeal had
attained finality. He could as much be liable for contempt therefor as if it had been perpetrated
during the pendency of the said appeal.

More than this, however, consideration of whether or not he could be held liable for contempt for
such post litigation utterances and actuations, is here immaterial. By the tenor of our Resolution of
November 17, 1967, we have confronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it concerns
Atty. Almacen's professional identity, his sworn duty as a lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this
Court, in the exercise of the disciplinary power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to
safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to preserve its ranks from the intrusions of
unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest of callings. In this inquiry, the pendency or non-
pendency of a case in court is altogether of no consequence. The sole objective of this proceeding is
to preserve the purity of the legal profession, by removing or suspending a member whose
misconduct has proved himself unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities
belonging to the office of an attorney.
Undoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do. By constitutional mandate, 22 our is the solemn
duty, amongst others, to determine the rules for admission to the practice of law. Inherent in this
prerogative is the corresponding authority to discipline and exclude from the practice of law those who
have proved themselves unworthy of continued membership in the Bar. Thus —

The power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, is an inherent and
incidental power in courts of record, and one which is essential to an orderly
discharge of judicial functions. To deny its existence is equivalent to a declaration
that the conduct of attorneys towards courts and clients is not subject to restraint.
Such a view is without support in any respectable authority, and cannot be tolerated.
Any court having the right to admit attorneys to practice and in this state that power is
vested in this court-has the inherent right, in the exercise of a sound judicial
discretion to exclude them from practice. 23

This, because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a representation to all that he is worthy
of their confidence and respect. So much so that —

... whenever it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer worthy of
the trust and confidence of the public and of the courts, it becomes, not only the right,
but the duty, of the court which made him one of its officers, and gave him the
privilege of ministering within its bar, to withdraw the privilege. Therefore it is almost
universally held that both the admission and disbarment of attorneys are judicial acts,
and that one is admitted to the bar and exercises his functions as an attorney, not as
a matter of right, but as a privilege conditioned on his own behavior and the exercise
of a just and sound judicial discretion. 24

Indeed, in this jurisdiction, that power to remove or suspend has risen above being a mere inherent or
incidental power. It has been elevated to an express mandate by the Rules of Court. 25

Our authority and duty in the premises being unmistakable, we now proceed to make an assessment
of whether or not the utterances and actuations of Atty. Almacen here in question are properly the
object of disciplinary sanctions.

The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely potestative on Atty. Almacen's
part. Unorthodox though it may seem, no statute, no law stands in its way. Beyond making the mere
offer, however, he went farther. In haughty and coarse language, he actually availed of the said
move as a vehicle for his vicious tirade against this Court. The integrated entirety of his petition
bristles with vile insults all calculated to drive home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court and
its members. Picturing his client as "a sacrificial victim at the altar of hypocrisy," he categorically
denounces the justice administered by this Court to be not only blind "but also deaf and dumb." With
unmitigated acerbity, he virtually makes this Court and its members with verbal talons, imputing to
the Court the perpetration of "silent injustices" and "short-cut justice" while at the same time branding
its members as "calloused to pleas of justice." And, true to his announced threat to argue the cause
of his client "in the people's forum," he caused the publication in the papers of an account of his
actuations, in a calculated effort ;to startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward
the Court. Called upon to make an explanation, he expressed no regret, offered no apology. Instead,
with characteristic arrogance, he rehashed and reiterated his vituperative attacks and, alluding to the
Scriptures, virtually tarred and feathered the Court and its members as inveterate hypocrites
incapable of administering justice and unworthy to impose disciplinary sanctions upon him.

The virulence so blatantly evident in Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and oral argumentation speaks
for itself. The vicious language used and the scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the
permissible bounds of legitimate criticism. They could never serve any purpose but to gratify the
spite of an irate attorney, attract public attention to himself and, more important of all, bring ;this
Court and its members into disrepute and destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the
orderly administration of justice. Odium of this character and texture presents no redeeming feature,
and completely negates any pretense of passionate commitment to the truth. It is not a whit less
than a classic example of gross misconduct, gross violation of the lawyer's oath and gross
transgression of the Canons of Legal Ethics. As such, it cannot be allowed to go unrebuked. The
way for the exertion of our disciplinary powers is thus laid clear, and the need therefor is
unavoidable.

We must once more stress our explicit disclaimer of immunity from criticism. Like any other
Government entity in a viable democracy, the Court is not, and should not be, above criticism. But a
critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its high function as the court of
last resort. And more than this, valid and healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy,
and requires detachment and disinterestedness, real qualities approached only through constant
striving to attain them. Any criticism of the Court must, possess the quality of judiciousness and must
be informed -by perspective and infused by philosophy. 26

It is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the exercise of our authority in ;the premises, that, as
Atty. Almacen would have appear, the members of the Court are the "complainants, prosecutors and
judges" all rolled up into one in this instance. This is an utter misapprehension, if not a total
distortion, not only of the nature of the proceeding at hand but also of our role therein.

Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generis.
Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not — and does not involve — a trial of an
action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers. 27 Not being
intended to. inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. 28 Public interest is its
primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person
to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely
calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by
purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to
be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. 29 In such posture,
there can thus be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.

Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved parties. Any tirade against
the Court as a body is necessarily and inextricably as much so against the individual members
thereof. But in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and
distinct from the individual personalities of its members. Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a
collegiate court, the individual members act not as such individuals but. only as a duly constituted
court. Their distinct individualities are lost in the majesty of their office. 30So that, in a very real sense,
if there be any complainant in the case at bar, it can only be the Court itself, not the individual members
thereof — as well as the people themselves whose rights, fortunes and properties, nay, even lives, would
be placed at grave hazard should the administration of justice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of
men unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of membership in the legal fraternity.

Finally, the power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of the
power to admit persons to said practice. By constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in
this Court. This duty it cannot abdicate just as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce jurisdiction
legally invested upon it. 31 So that even if it be conceded that the members collectively are in a sense the
aggrieved parties, that fact alone does not and cannot disqualify them from the exercise of that power
because public policy demands that they., acting as a Court, exercise the power in all cases which call for
disciplinary action. The present is such a case. In the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger in one
entity of the personalities of complainant, prosecutor and judge is absolutely inexistent.

Last to engage our attention is the nature and extent of the sanctions that may be visited upon Atty.
Almacen for his transgressions. As marked out by the Rules of Court, these may range from mere
suspension to total removal or disbarment. 32 The discretion to assess under the circumstances the
imposable sanction is, of course, primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the Court which, being
neither arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice, should ever be controlled
by the imperative need that the purity and independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the
dignity of and respect due to the Court be zealously maintained.

That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable gravity cannot be

overemphasized. However, heeding the stern injunction that disbarment should never be decreed
where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end desired, and believing that it may not perhaps be
futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty. Almacen will realize that abrasive
language never fails to do disservice to an advocate and that in every effervescence of candor there
is ample room for the added glow of respect, it is our view that suspension will suffice under the
circumstances. His demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither manifesting repentance
nor offering apology therefor leave us no way of determining how long that suspension should last
and, accordingly, we are impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite. This, we are
empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also
because, even without the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we have authority to
completely exclude a person from the practice of law, there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which
is lesser in degree and effect, can be regarded as falling outside of the compass of that authority. The
merit of this choice is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for
himself how long or how short that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension becomes
effective he may prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen be, as he is
hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to take effect
immediately.

Let copies of this resolution. be furnished the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General and the
Court of Appeals for their information and guidance.
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT

BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT"

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

For disposition of the Court are the various submissions of the 37 respondent law professors1 in
response to the Resolution dated October 19, 2010 (the Show Cause Resolution), directing them to
show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of specific
provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerated therein.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the Show Cause Resolution clearly dockets this as an
administrative matter, not a special civil action for indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of
Court, contrary to the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Justice
Sereno) to the said October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution. Neither is this a disciplinary
proceeding grounded on an allegedly irregularly concluded finding of indirect contempt as intimated
by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (Justice Morales) in her dissenting opinions to both
the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution and the present decision.

With the nature of this case as purely a bar disciplinary proceeding firmly in mind, the Court finds
that with the exception of one respondent whose compliance was adequate and another who
manifested he was not a member of the Philippine Bar, the submitted explanations, being mere
denials and/or tangential to the issues at hand, are decidedly unsatisfactory. The proffered defenses
even more urgently behoove this Court to call the attention of respondent law professors, who are
members of the Bar, to the relationship of their duties as such under the Code of Professional
Responsibility to their civil rights as citizens and academics in our free and democratic republic.

The provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility involved in this case are as follows:

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect
for law and legal processes.

RULE 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.

Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal
or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them
to defeat the ends of justice.
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 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper
authorities only.

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.

Established jurisprudence will undeniably support our view that when lawyers speak their minds,
they must ever be mindful of their sworn oath to observe ethical standards of their profession, and in
particular, avoid foul and abusive language to condemn the Supreme Court, or any court for that
matter, for a decision it has rendered, especially during the pendency of a motion for such decision’s
reconsideration. The accusation of plagiarism against a member of this Court is not the real issue
here but rather this plagiarism issue has been used to deflect everyone’s attention from the actual
concern of this Court to determine by respondents’ explanations whether or not respondent
members of the Bar have crossed the line of decency and acceptable professional conduct and
speech and violated the Rules of Court through improper intervention or interference as third parties
to a pending case. Preliminarily, it should be stressed that it was respondents themselves who called
upon the Supreme Court to act on their Statement,2 which they formally submitted, through Dean
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Dean Leonen), for the Court’s proper disposition. Considering the defenses
of freedom of speech and academic freedom invoked by the respondents, it is worth discussing here
that the legal reasoning used in the past by this Court to rule that freedom of expression is not a
defense in administrative cases against lawyers for using intemperate speech in open court or in
court submissions can similarly be applied to respondents’ invocation of academic freedom. Indeed,
it is precisely because respondents are not merely lawyers but lawyers who teach law and mould the
minds of young aspiring attorneys that respondents’ own non-observance of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, even if purportedly motivated by the purest of intentions, cannot be
ignored nor glossed over by this Court.

To fully appreciate the grave repercussions of respondents’ actuations, it is apropos to revisit the
factual antecedents of this case.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Antecedent Facts and Proceedings

On April 28, 2010, the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del Castillo) in
Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) was promulgated. On May 31, 2010, the
counsel3 for Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya Lolas"), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Vinuya
decision, raising solely the following grounds:

I. Our own constitutional and jurisprudential histories reject this Honorable Courts’ (sic)
assertion that the Executive’s foreign policy prerogatives are virtually unlimited; precisely,
under the relevant jurisprudence and constitutional provisions, such prerogatives are
proscribed by international human rights and humanitarian standards, including those
provided for in the relevant international conventions of which the Philippines is a party.4

II. This Honorable Court has confused diplomatic protection with the broader, if fundamental,
responsibility of states to protect the human rights of its citizens – especially where the rights
asserted are subject of erga omnes obligations and pertain to jus cogens norms.5
On July 19, 2010,6 counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and
Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares), filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in G.R.
No. 162230, where they posited for the first time their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for
reconsideration of the Vinuya decision. Among other arguments, Attys. Roque and Bagares asserted
that:

I.

IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER FOR THIS HONORABLE COURT’S JUDGMENT
OF APRIL 28, 2010 TO PLAGIARIZE AT LEAST THREE SOURCES – AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED
IN 2009 IN THE YALE LAW JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, A BOOK PUBLISHED BY THE
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS IN 2005 AND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2006 IN THE
CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW – AND MAKE IT APPEAR
THAT THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT’S ARGUMENTS FOR DISMISSING THE
INSTANT PETITION WHEN IN TRUTH, THE PLAGIARIZED SOURCES EVEN MAKE A STRONG
CASE FOR THE PETITION’S CLAIMS.7

They also claimed that "[i]n this controversy, the evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive
plagiarism but of (sic) also of twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to
suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition."8

According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, the works allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were
namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s article "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;"9 (2)
Christian J. Tams’ book Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law;10 and (3) Mark Ellis’
article "Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime."11

On the same day as the filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on July 19, 2010,
journalists Aries C. Rufo and Purple S. Romero posted an article, entitled "SC justice plagiarized
parts of ruling on comfort women," on the Newsbreak website.12 The same article appeared on the
GMA News TV website also on July 19, 2010.13

On July 22, 2010, Atty. Roque’s column, entitled "Plagiarized and Twisted," appeared in the Manila
Standard Today.14 In the said column, Atty. Roque claimed that Prof. Evan Criddle, one of the
authors purportedly not properly acknowledged in the Vinuya decision, confirmed that his work, co-
authored with Prof. Evan Fox-Decent, had been plagiarized. Atty. Roque quoted Prof. Criddle’s
response to the post by Julian Ku regarding the news report15 on the alleged plagiarism in the
international law blog, Opinio Juris. Prof. Criddle responded to Ku’s blog entry in this wise:

The newspaper’s16 [plagiarism] claims are based on a motion for reconsideration filed yesterday with
the Philippine Supreme Court yesterday. The motion is available here:

http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/

The motion suggests that the Court’s decision contains thirty-four sentences and citations that are
identical to sentences and citations in my 2009 YJIL article (co-authored with Evan Fox-Decent).
Professor Fox-Decent and I were unaware of the petitioners’ [plagiarism] allegations until after the
motion was filed today.

Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court’s jus cogens discussion is that it implies
that the prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens
norms. Our article emphatically asserts the opposite. The Supreme Court’s decision is available
here: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm17
On even date, July 22, 2010, Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the
charge of plagiarism contained in the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.18

In a letter dated July 23, 2010, another purportedly plagiarized author in the Vinuya decision, Dr.
Mark Ellis, wrote the Court, to wit:

Your Honours:

I write concerning a most delicate issue that has come to my attention in the last few days.

Much as I regret to raise this matter before your esteemed Court, I am compelled, as a question of
the integrity of my work as an academic and as an advocate of human rights and humanitarian law,
to take exception to the possible unauthorized use of my law review article on rape as an
international crime in your esteemed Court’s Judgment in the case of Vinuya et al. v. Executive
Secretary et al. (G.R. No. 162230, Judgment of 28 April 2010).

My attention was called to the Judgment and the issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine
chapter of the Southeast Asia Media Legal Defence Initiative (SEAMLDI),19 an affiliate of the
London-based Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), where I sit as trustee.

In particular, I am concerned about a large part of the extensive discussion in footnote 65, pp. 27-28,
of the said Judgment of your esteemed Court. I am also concerned that your esteemed Court may
have misread the arguments I made in the article and employed them for cross purposes. This
would be ironic since the article was written precisely to argue for the appropriate legal remedy for
victims of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

I believe a full copy of my article as published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International
Law in 2006 has been made available to your esteemed Court. I trust that your esteemed Court will
take the time to carefully study the arguments I made in the article.

I would appreciate receiving a response from your esteemed Court as to the issues raised by this
letter.

With respect,

(Sgd.)
Dr. Mark Ellis20

In Memorandum Order No. 35-2010 issued on July 27, 2010, the Court formed the Committee on
Ethics and Ethical Standards (the Ethics Committee) pursuant to Section 13, Rule 2 of the Internal
Rules of the Supreme Court. In an En Banc Resolution also dated July 27, 2010, the Court referred
the July 22, 2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo to the Ethics Committee. The matter was subsequently
docketed as A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.

On August 2, 2010, the Ethics Committee required Attys. Roque and Bagares to comment on the
letter of Justice Del Castillo.21

On August 9, 2010, a statement dated July 27, 2010, entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by
the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" (the Statement), was posted in Newsbreak’s website22 and
on Atty. Roque’s blog.23 A report regarding the statement also appeared on various on-line news
sites, such as the GMA News TV24 and the Sun Star25 sites, on the same date. The statement was
likewise posted at the University of the Philippines College of Law’s bulletin board allegedly on
August 10, 201026 and at said college’s website.27

On August 11, 2010, Dean Leonen submitted a copy of the Statement of the University of the
Philippines College of Law Faculty (UP Law faculty) to the Court, through Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona (Chief Justice Corona). The cover letter dated August 10, 2010 of Dean Leonen read:

The Honorable
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines

Through: Hon. Renato C. Corona

Chief Justice

Subject: Statement of faculty

from the UP College of Law
on the Plagiarism in the case of
Vinuya v Executive Secretary

Your Honors:

We attach for your information and proper disposition a statement signed by thirty[-]eight
(38)28members of the faculty of the UP College of Law. We hope that its points could be considered
by the Supreme Court en banc.

Respectfully,

(Sgd.)
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Dean and Professor of Law

(Emphases supplied.)

The copy of the Statement attached to the above-quoted letter did not contain the actual signatures
of the alleged signatories but only stated the names of 37 UP Law professors with the notation
(SGD.) appearing beside each name. For convenient reference, the text of the UP Law faculty
Statement is reproduced here:

RESTORING INTEGRITY

A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT

An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had
suffered abuse during a time of war. After they courageously came out with their very personal
stories of abuse and suffering as "comfort women", waited for almost two decades for any
meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan, got their
hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
162230 (28 April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of
dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.

It is within this frame that the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law views the
charge that an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation
in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the
individual scholars whose work have been appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious
threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine Judicial System.

In common parlance, ‘plagiarism’ is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s

work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a
taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and creativity that went into
committing such ideas and expressions into writing, and then making it appear that such ideas and
expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure and simple. A judicial system
that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part
of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by
dishonest means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.

A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original source material shows that the ponente merely
copied select portions of other legal writers’ works and interspersed them into the decision as if they
were his own, original work. Under the circumstances, however, because the Decision has been
promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no longer just the ponente’s.
Thus the Court also bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the absence of any mention of the
original writers’ names and the publications from which they came, the thing speaks for itself.

So far there have been unsatisfactory responses from the ponente of this case and the spokesman
of the Court.

It is argued, for example, that the inclusion of the footnotes from the original articles is a reference to
the ‘primary’ sources relied upon. This cursory explanation is not acceptable, because the original
authors’ writings and the effort they put into finding and summarizing those primary sources are
precisely the subject of plagiarism. The inclusion of the footnotes together with portions of their
writings in fact aggravates, instead of mitigates, the plagiarism since it provides additional evidence
of a deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ work of organizing and analyzing those
primary sources.

It is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot be expected to be familiar with all legal and
scholarly journals. This is also not acceptable, because personal unfamiliarity with sources all the
more demands correct and careful attribution and citation of the material relied upon. It is a matter of
diligence and competence expected of all Magistrates of the Highest Court of the Land.

But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and
Evan Fox-Descent, that the High Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled
"A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens," the main source of the plagiarized text. In this article they argue
that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity
have attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on
behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses parts of the same article to arrive at
the contrary conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works without
attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and
deceive.
The case is a potential landmark decision in International Law, because it deals with State liability
and responsibility for personal injury and damage suffered in a time of war, and the role of the
injured parties’ home States in the pursuit of remedies against such injury or damage. National
courts rarely have such opportunities to make an international impact. That the petitioners were
Filipino "comfort women" who suffered from horrific abuse during the Second World War made it
incumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them every solicitude. But instead of acting with
urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths
of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition
based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials, the Court decided this case based on polluted
sources. By so doing, the Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its
"power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of
the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance, belies
a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect. The
reputation of the Philippine Supreme Court and the standing of the Philippine legal profession before
other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake.

The High Court cannot accommodate less than absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept
excuses for failure to attain the highest standards of conduct imposed upon all members of the
Bench and Bar because these undermine the very foundation of its authority and power in a
democratic society. Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that surrounded it, it cannot
allow the charges of such clear and obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction as this would only
further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system. And in light of the significance of this
decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who
have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly
deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts.

The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own
conduct, whether collectively or through its Members, is beyond reproach. This necessarily includes
ensuring that not only the content, but also the processes of preparing and writing its own decisions,
are credible and beyond question. The Vinuya Decision must be conscientiously reviewed and not
casually cast aside, if not for the purpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and
guidance. It is an absolutely essential step toward the establishment of a higher standard of
professional care and practical scholarship in the Bench and Bar, which are critical to improving the
system of administration of justice in the Philippines. It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the
position of the Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all controversies: a position that requires
competence and integrity completely above any and all reproach, in accordance with the exacting
demands of judicial and professional ethics.

With these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as
teachers in the profession of Law, it is the opinion of the Faculty of the University of the Philippine
College of Law that:

(1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is

unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and
judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court;

(2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire
Supreme Court and undermines the foundations of the Philippine judicial system by
allowing implicitly the decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents
through dubious means;
 (3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to
the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all
those who have been left without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners
therein;

(4) In light of the extremely serious and far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to
save the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is necessary for
the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without prejudice
to any other sanctions that the Court may consider appropriate;

(5) The Supreme Court must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it
conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions in order to
prevent a recurrence of similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the
Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in
pleadings, practice, and adjudication.

Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, 27 July 2010.

(SGD.) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Dean and Professor of Law

(SGD.) FROILAN M. BACUNGAN (SGD.) PACIFICO A. AGABIN

Dean (1978-1983) Dean (1989-1995)

(SGD.) MERLIN M. MAGALLONA (SGD.) SALVADOR T. CARLOTA

Dean (1995-1999) Dean (2005-2008) and Professor of Law

REGULAR FACULTY

(SGD.) CARMELO V. SISON (SGD.) JAY L. BATONGBACAL

Professor Assistant Professor

(SGD.) PATRICIA R.P. SALVADOR

DAWAY (SGD.) EVELYN (LEO) D. BATTAD
Associate Dean and Associate Assistant Professor
Professor

(SGD.) DANTE B. GATMAYTAN (SGD.) GWEN G. DE VERA

Associate Professor Assistant Professor

(SGD.) THEODORE O. TE (SGD.) SOLOMON F. LUMBA

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
 (SGD.) FLORIN T. HILBAY (SGD.) ROMMEL J. CASIS
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor

LECTURERS

(SGD.) JOSE GERARDO A. ALAMPAY (SGD.) JOSE C. LAURETA

(SGD.) ARTHUR P. AUTEA (SGD.) DINA D. LUCENARIO
(SGD.) ROSA MARIA J. BAUTISTA (SGD.) OWEN J. LYNCH
(SGD.) MARK R. BOCOBO (SGD.) ANTONIO M. SANTOS
(SGD.) DAN P. CALICA (SGD.) VICENTE V. MENDOZA
(SGD.) TRISTAN A. CATINDIG (SGD.) RODOLFO NOEL S. QUIMBO
(SGD.) SANDRA MARIE O. CORONEL (SGD.) GMELEEN FAYE B. TOMBOC
(SGD.) ROSARIO O. GALLO (SGD.) NICHOLAS FELIX L. TY
(SGD.) CONCEPCION L. JARDELEZA (SGD.) EVALYN G. URSUA
(SGD.) ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA (SGD.) RAUL T. VASQUEZ
(SGD.) SUSAN D. VILLANUEVA29
(SGD.) CARINA C. LAFORTEZA
(Underscoring supplied.)

Meanwhile, in a letter dated August 18, 2010, Prof. Christian J. Tams made known his sentiments on
the alleged plagiarism issue to the Court.30 We quote Prof. Tams’ letter here:

Glasgow, 18 August 2010

Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (G.R. No. 162230)

Hon. Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice

Your Excellency,

My name is Christian J. Tams, and I am a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow.
I am writing to you in relation to the use of one of my publications in the above-mentioned judgment
of your Honourable Court.

The relevant passage of the judgment is to be found on p. 30 of your Court’s Judgment, in the
section addressing the concept of obligations erga omnes. As the table annexed to this letter shows,
the relevant sentences were taken almost word by word from the introductory chapter of my book
Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005). I note
that there is a generic reference to my work in footnote 69 of the Judgment, but as this is in relation
to a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with respect to the substantive
passages reproduced in the Judgment, I do not think it can be considered an appropriate form of
referencing.

I am particularly concerned that my work should have been used to support the Judgment’s cautious
approach to the erga omnes concept. In fact, a most cursory reading shows that my book’s central
thesis is precisely the opposite: namely that the erga omnes concept has been widely accepted and
has a firm place in contemporary international law. Hence the introductory chapter notes that "[t]he
present study attempts to demystify aspects of the ‘very mysterious’ concept and thereby to facilitate
its implementation" (p. 5). In the same vein, the concluding section notes that "the preceding
chapters show that the concept is now a part of the reality of international law, established in the
jurisprudence of courts and the practice of States" (p. 309).

With due respect to your Honourable Court, I am at a loss to see how my work should have been
cited to support – as it seemingly has – the opposite approach. More generally, I am concerned at
the way in which your Honourable Court’s Judgment has drawn on scholarly work without properly
acknowledging it.

On both aspects, I would appreciate a prompt response from your Honourable Court.

I remain

Sincerely yours

(Sgd.)
Christian J. Tams31

In the course of the submission of Atty. Roque and Atty. Bagares’ exhibits during the August 26,
2010 hearing in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo, the Ethics Committee noted that Exhibit
"J" (a copy of the Restoring Integrity Statement) was not signed but merely reflected the names of
certain faculty members with the letters (SGD.) beside the names. Thus, the Ethics Committee
directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy of the said Statement within three days from the
August 26 hearing.32

It was upon compliance with this directive that the Ethics Committee was given a copy of the signed
UP Law Faculty Statement that showed on the signature pages the names of the full roster of the UP
Law Faculty, 81 faculty members in all. Indubitable from the actual signed copy of the Statement
was that only 37 of the 81 faculty members appeared to have signed the same. However, the 37
actual signatories to the Statement did not include former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente
V. Mendoza (Justice Mendoza) as represented in the previous copies of the Statement submitted by
Dean Leonen and Atty. Roque. It also appeared that Atty. Miguel R. Armovit (Atty. Armovit) signed
the Statement although his name was not included among the signatories in the previous copies
submitted to the Court. Thus, the total number of ostensible signatories to the Statement remained
at 37.

The Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc since the same Statement, having
been formally submitted by Dean Leonen on August 11, 2010, was already under consideration by
the Court.33

In a Resolution dated October 19, 2010, the Court en banc made the following observations
regarding the UP Law Faculty Statement:

Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of
plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact,
but a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on
how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to
those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.

Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the Court. The
opening sentence alone is a grim preamble to the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads:
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had
suffered abuse during a time of war.

The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as
a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x x x.

The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the
resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of "polluted sources," the Court’s alleged
indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as well as the supposed alarming lack of
concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.34 x x x.
(Underscoring ours.)

In the same Resolution, the Court went on to state that:

While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic
society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of
criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These
potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the
judiciary. The court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an
orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass
the administration of justice."

The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective
comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the
Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if the
case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the
flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This
runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold
the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have
taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.35 x x x. (Citations
omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied.)

Thus, the Court directed Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin,
Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante
B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen
G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit,
Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra
Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña, Carina C.
Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen
Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Raul T. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva and
Dina D. Lucenario to show cause, within ten (10) days from receipt of the copy of the Resolution,
why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1,36 11 and 13 and
Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.37

Dean Leonen was likewise directed to show cause within the same period why he should not be
disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting
through his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency of G.R. No. 162230 and of the
investigation before the Ethics Committee, for the consideration of the Court en banc, a dummy
which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement.38

In the same Resolution, the present controversy was docketed as a regular administrative matter.
Summaries of the Pleadings Filed by Respondents in Response to the October 19, 2010 Show
Cause Resolution

On November 19, 2010, within the extension for filing granted by the Court, respondents filed the
following pleadings:

(1) Compliance dated November 18, 2010 by counsels for 35 of the 37 respondents,
excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul T. Vasquez, in relation to the charge of violation
of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;

(2) Compliance and Reservation dated November 18, 2010 by Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-
Bautista in relation to the same charge in par. (1);

(3) Compliance dated November 19, 2010 by counsel for Prof. Raul T. Vasquez in relation to
the same charge in par. (1);

(4) Compliance dated November 19, 2010 by counsels for Dean Leonen, in relation to the
charge of violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03; and

(5) Manifestation dated November 19, 2010 by counsel for Prof. Owen Lynch.

Common Compliance of 35 Respondents (Excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul Vasquez)

Thirty-five (35) of the respondent UP Law professors filed on November 19, 2010 a common
compliance which was signed by their respective counsels (the Common Compliance). In the
"Preface" of said Common Compliance, respondents stressed that "[they] issued the Restoring
Integrity Statement in the discharge of the ‘solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers
in the profession of law,’ and as members of the Bar to speak out on a matter of public concern and
one that is of vital interest to them."39 They likewise alleged that "they acted with the purest of
intentions" and pointed out that "none of them was involved either as party or counsel"40 in the
Vinuya case. Further, respondents "note with concern" that the Show Cause Resolution’s findings
and conclusions were "a prejudgment – that respondents indeed are in contempt, have breached
their obligations as law professors and officers of the Court, and have violated ‘Canons [1], 11 and
13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility."41

By way of explanation, the respondents emphasized the following points:

(a) Respondents’ alleged noble intentions

In response to the charges of failure to observe due respect to legal processes42 and the
courts43 and of tending to influence, or giving the appearance of influencing the Court44 in the
issuance of their Statement, respondents assert that their intention was not to malign the
Court but rather to defend its integrity and credibility and to ensure continued confidence in
the legal system. Their noble motive was purportedly evidenced by the portion of their
Statement "focusing on constructive action."45 Respondents’ call in the Statement for the
Court "to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the
highest quality of legal research and writing in adjudication," was reputedly "in keeping with
strictures enjoining lawyers to ‘participate in the development of the legal system by initiating
or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice’"
(under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) and to "promote respect for the
law and legal processes" (under Canon 1, id.).46 Furthermore, as academics, they allegedly
have a "special interest and duty to vigilantly guard against plagiarism and misrepresentation
because these unwelcome occurrences have a profound impact in the academe, especially
in our law schools."47

Respondents further "[called] on this Court not to misconstrue the Restoring Integrity
Statement as an ‘institutional attack’ x x x on the basis of its first and ninth
paragraphs."48 They further clarified that at the time the Statement was allegedly drafted and
agreed upon, it appeared to them the Court "was not going to take any action on the grave
and startling allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation."49 According to respondents,
the bases for their belief were (i) the news article published on July 21, 2010 in the Philippine
Daily Inquirer wherein Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez was reported to have said
that Chief Justice Corona would not order an inquiry into the matter;50 and (ii) the July 22,
2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo which they claimed "did nothing but to downplay the gravity
of the plagiarism and misrepresentation charges."51 Respondents claimed that it was their
perception of the Court’s indifference to the dangers posed by the plagiarism allegations
against Justice Del Castillo that impelled them to urgently take a public stand on the issue.

(b) The "correctness" of respondents’ position that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism
and should be held accountable in accordance with the standards of academic writing

A significant portion of the Common Compliance is devoted to a discussion of the merits of

respondents’ charge of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo. Relying on University of the
Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals52 and foreign materials and jurisprudence,
respondents essentially argue that their position regarding the plagiarism charge against
Justice Del Castillo is the correct view and that they are therefore justified in issuing their
Restoring Integrity Statement. Attachments to the Common Compliance included, among
others: (i) the letter dated October 28, 2010 of Peter B. Payoyo, LL.M, Ph.D.,53 sent to Chief
Justice Corona through Justice Sereno, alleging that the Vinuya decision likewise lifted
without proper attribution the text from a legal article by Mariana Salazar Albornoz that
appeared in the Anuario Mexicano De Derecho Internacional and from an International Court
of Justice decision; and (ii) a 2008 Human Rights Law Review Article entitled "Sexual
Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law" by Michael O’Flaherty and
John Fisher, in support of their charge that Justice Del Castillo also lifted passages from said
article without proper attribution, but this time, in his ponencia in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
Commission on Elections.54

(c) Respondents’ belief that they are being "singled out" by the Court when others have
likewise spoken on the "plagiarism issue"

In the Common Compliance, respondents likewise asserted that "the plagiarism and
misrepresentation allegations are legitimate public issues."55 They identified various
published reports and opinions, in agreement with and in opposition to the stance of
respondents, on the issue of plagiarism, specifically:

(i) Newsbreak report on July 19, 2010 by Aries Rufo and Purple Romero;56

(ii) Column of Ramon Tulfo which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July
24, 2010;57

(iii) Editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer published on July 25, 2010;58
 (iv) Letter dated July 22, 2010 of Justice Del Castillo published in the Philippine Star
on July 30, 2010;59

(v) Column of Former Intellectual Property Office Director General Adrian Cristobal,
Jr. published in the Business Mirror on August 5, 2010;60

(vi) Column of Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban published in the Philippine
Daily Inquirer on August 8, 2010;61

(vii) News report regarding Senator Francis Pangilinan’s call for the resignation of
Justice Del Castillo published in the Daily Tribune and the Manila Standard Today on
July 31, 2010;62

(viii) News reports regarding the statement of Dean Cesar Villanueva of the Ateneo
de Manila University School of Law on the calls for the resignation of Justice Del
Castillo published in The Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Star and the Business Mirror
on August 11, 2010;63

(ix) News report on expressions of support for Justice Del Castillo from a former
dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, the Philippine Constitutional
Association, the Judges Association of Bulacan and the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines – Bulacan Chapter published in the Philippine Star on August 16,
2010;64 and

(x) Letter of the Dean of the Liceo de Cagayan University College of Law published
in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 10, 2010.65

In view of the foregoing, respondents alleged that this Court has singled them out for
sanctions and the charge in the Show Cause Resolution dated October 19, 2010 that they
may have violated specific canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility is unfair and
without basis.

(d) Freedom of expression

In paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Common Compliance, respondents briefly discussed their

position that in issuing their Statement, "they should be seen as not only to be performing
their duties as members of the Bar, officers of the court, and teachers of law, but also as
citizens of a democracy who are constitutionally protected in the exercise of free
speech."66 In support of this contention, they cited United States v. Bustos,67In re: Atty.
Vicente Raul Almacen, 68 and In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re:
Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission on Elections.69

(e) Academic freedom

In paragraphs 31 to 34 of the Common Compliance, respondents asserted that their Statement was
also issued in the exercise of their academic freedom as teachers in an institution of higher learning.
They relied on Section 5 of the University of the Philippines Charter of 2008 which provided that
"[t]he national university has the right and responsibility to exercise academic freedom." They
likewise adverted to Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology70 which
they claimed recognized the extent and breadth of such freedom as to encourage a free and healthy
discussion and communication of a faculty member’s field of study without fear of reprisal. It is
respondents’ view that had they remained silent on the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya decision they
would have "compromised [their] integrity and credibility as teachers; [their silence] would have
created a culture and generation of students, professionals, even lawyers, who would lack the
competence and discipline for research and pleading; or, worse, [that] their silence would have
communicated to the public that plagiarism and misrepresentation are inconsequential matters and
that intellectual integrity has no bearing or relevance to one’s conduct."71

In closing, respondents’ Common Compliance exhorted this Court to consider the following portion
of the dissenting opinion of Justice George A. Malcolm in Salcedo v. Hernandez,72 to wit:

Respect for the courts can better be obtained by following a calm and impartial course from the
bench than by an attempt to compel respect for the judiciary by chastising a lawyer for a too
vigorous or injudicious exposition of his side of a case. The Philippines needs lawyers of
independent thought and courageous bearing, jealous of the interests of their clients and unafraid of
any court, high or low, and the courts will do well tolerantly to overlook occasional intemperate
language soon to be regretted by the lawyer which affects in no way the outcome of a case.73

On the matter of the reliefs to which respondents believe they are entitled, the Common Compliance
stated, thus:

WHEREFORE:

A. Respondents, as citizens of a democracy, professors of law, members of the Bar and

officers of the Court, respectfully pray that:

1. the foregoing be noted; and

2. the Court reconsider and reverse its adverse findings in the Show Cause
Resolution, including its conclusions that respondents have: [a] breached their
"obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the
dignity and authority of this Court, … and not to promote distrust in the administration
of justice;" and [b] committed "violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02
and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility."

B. In the event the Honorable Court declines to grant the foregoing prayer, respondents
respectfully pray, in the alternative, and in assertion of their due process rights, that before
final judgment be rendered:

1. the Show Cause Resolution be set for hearing;

2. respondents be given a fair and full opportunity to refute and/or address the
findings and conclusions of fact in the Show Cause Resolution (including especially
the finding and conclusion of a lack of malicious intent), and in that connection, that
appropriate procedures and schedules for hearing be adopted and defined that will
allow them the full and fair opportunity to require the production of and to present
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence bearing on the plagiarism and
misrepresentation issues in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April
28, 2010) and In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc. Against Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC); and
 3. respondents be given fair and full access to the transcripts, records, drafts, reports
and submissions in or relating to, and accorded the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses who were or could have been called in In The Matter of the Charges of
Plagiarism, etc. Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC).74

Compliance and Reservation of Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista

Although already included in the Common Compliance, Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista (Prof.
Juan-Bautista) filed a separate Compliance and Reservation (the Bautista Compliance), wherein she
adopted the allegations in the Common Compliance with some additional averments.

Prof. Juan-Bautista reiterated that her due process rights allegedly entitled her to challenge the
findings and conclusions in the Show Cause Resolution. Furthermore, "[i]f the Restoring Integrity
Statement can be considered indirect contempt, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,
such may be punished only after charge and hearing."75

Prof. Juan-Bautista stressed that respondents signed the Statement "in good faith and with the best
intentions to protect the Supreme Court by asking one member to resign."76 For her part, Prof. Juan-
Bautista intimated that her deep disappointment and sadness for the plight of the Malaya Lolas were
what motivated her to sign the Statement.

On the point of academic freedom, Prof. Juan-Bautista cited jurisprudence77 which in her view
highlighted that academic freedom is constitutionally guaranteed to institutions of higher learning
such that schools have the freedom to determine for themselves who may teach, what may be
taught, how lessons shall be taught and who may be admitted to study and that courts have no
authority to interfere in the schools’ exercise of discretion in these matters in the absence of grave
abuse of discretion. She claims the Court has encroached on the academic freedom of the
University of the Philippines and other universities on their right to determine how lessons shall be
taught.

Lastly, Prof. Juan-Bautista asserted that the Statement was an exercise of respondents’
constitutional right to freedom of expression that can only be curtailed when there is grave and
imminent danger to public safety, public morale, public health or other legitimate public interest.78

Compliance of Prof. Raul T. Vasquez

On November 19, 2010, Prof. Raul T. Vasquez (Prof. Vasquez) filed a separate Compliance by
registered mail (the Vasquez Compliance). In said Compliance, Prof. Vasquez narrated the
circumstances surrounding his signing of the Statement. He alleged that the Vinuya decision was a
topic of conversation among the UP Law faculty early in the first semester (of academic year 2010-
11) because it reportedly contained citations not properly attributed to the sources; that he was
shown a copy of the Statement by a clerk of the Office of the Dean on his way to his class; and that,
agreeing in principle with the main theme advanced by the Statement, he signed the same in utmost
good faith.79

In response to the directive from this Court to explain why he should not be disciplined as a member
of the Bar under the Show Cause Resolution, Prof. Vasquez also took the position that a lawyer has
the right, like all citizens in a democratic society, to comment on acts of public officers. He invited the
attention of the Court to the following authorities: (a) In re: Vicente Sotto;80 (b) In re: Atty. Vicente
Raul Almacen;81 and (c) a discussion appearing in American Jurisprudence (AmJur) 2d.82 He claims
that he "never had any intention to unduly influence, nor entertained any illusion that he could or
should influence, [the Court] in its disposition of the Vinuya case"83 and that "attacking the integrity of
[the Court] was the farthest thing on respondent’s mind when he signed the Statement."84Unlike his
colleagues, who wish to impress upon this Court the purported homogeneity of the views on what
constitutes plagiarism, Prof. Vasquez stated in his Compliance that:

13. Before this Honorable Court rendered its Decision dated 12 October 2010, some espoused the
view that willful and deliberate intent to commit plagiarism is an essential element of the same.
Others, like respondent, were of the opinion that plagiarism is committed regardless of the intent of
the perpetrator, the way it has always been viewed in the academe. This uncertainty made the issue
a fair topic for academic discussion in the College. Now, this Honorable Court has ruled that
plagiarism presupposes deliberate intent to steal another’s work and to pass it off as one’s
own.85 (Emphases supplied.)

Also in contrast to his colleagues, Prof. Vasquez was willing to concede that he "might have been
remiss in correctly assessing the effects of such language [in the Statement] and could have been
more careful."86 He ends his discussion with a respectful submission that with his explanation, he
has faithfully complied with the Show Cause Resolution and that the Court will rule that he had not in
any manner violated his oath as a lawyer and officer of the Court.

Separate Compliance of Dean Leonen regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10 in relation to
his submission of a "dummy" of the UP Law Faculty Statement to this Court

In his Compliance, Dean Leonen claimed that there were three drafts/versions of the UP Law
Faculty Statement, which he described as follows:

• "Restoring Integrity I" which bears the entire roster of the faculty of the UP College of Law
in its signing pages, and the actual signatures of the thirty-seven (37) faculty members
subject of the Show Cause Resolution. A copy was filed with the Honorable Court by Roque
and Butuyan on 31 August 2010 in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.

• "Restoring Integrity II" which does not bear any actual physical signature, but which
reflects as signatories the names of thirty-seven (37) members of the faculty with the
notation "(SGD.)". A copy of Restoring Integrity II was publicly and physically posted in the
UP College of Law on 10 August 2010. Another copy of Restoring Integrity II was also
officially received by the Honorable Court from the Dean of the UP College of Law on 11
August 2010, almost three weeks before the filing of Restoring Integrity I.

• "Restoring Integrity III" which is a reprinting of Restoring Integrity II, and which presently
serves as the official file copy of the Dean’s Office in the UP College of Law that may be
signed by other faculty members who still wish to. It bears the actual signatures of the thirty-
seven original signatories to Restoring Integrity I above their printed names and the notation
"(SGD.") and, in addition, the actual signatures of eight (8) other members of the faculty
above their handwritten or typewritten names.87

For purposes of this discussion, only Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II are relevant since
what Dean Leonen has been directed to explain are the discrepancies in the signature pages of
these two documents. Restoring Integrity III was never submitted to this Court.

On how Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II were prepared and came about, Dean Leonen
alleged, thus:
 2.2 On 27 July 2010, sensing the emergence of a relatively broad agreement in the faculty
on a draft statement, Dean Leonen instructed his staff to print the draft and circulate it among
the faculty members so that those who wished to may sign. For this purpose, the staff
encoded the law faculty roster to serve as the printed draft’s signing pages. Thus did the first
printed draft of the Restoring Integrity Statement, Restoring Integrity I, come into being.

2.3. As of 27 July 2010, the date of the Restoring Integrity Statement, Dean Leonen was
unaware that a Motion for Reconsideration of the Honorable Court’s Decision in Vinuya vs.
Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, 28 April 2010) had already been filed, or that the
Honorable Court was in the process of convening its Committee on Ethics and Ethical
Standards in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.

2.4. Dean Leonen’s staff then circulated Restoring Integrity I among the members of the
faculty. Some faculty members visited the Dean’s Office to sign the document or had it
brought to their classrooms in the College of Law, or to their offices or residences. Still other
faculty members who, for one reason or another, were unable to sign Restoring Integrity I at
that time, nevertheless conveyed to Dean Leonen their assurances that they would sign as
soon as they could manage.

2.5. Sometime in the second week of August, judging that Restoring Integrity I had been
circulated long enough, Dean Leonen instructed his staff to reproduce the statement in a
style and manner appropriate for posting in the College of Law. Following his own
established practice in relation to significant public issuances, he directed them to reformat
the signing pages so that only the names of those who signed the first printed draft would
appear, together with the corresponding "(SGD.)" note following each name. Restoring
Integrity II thus came into being.88

According to Dean Leonen, the "practice of eliminating blanks opposite or above the names of non-
signatories in the final draft of significant public issuances, is meant not so much for aesthetic
considerations as to secure the integrity of such documents."89 He likewise claimed that "[p]osting
statements with blanks would be an open invitation to vandals and pranksters."90

With respect to the inclusion of Justice Mendoza’s name as among the signatories in Restoring
Integrity II when in fact he did not sign Restoring Integrity I, Dean Leonen attributed the mistake to a
miscommunication involving his administrative officer. In his Compliance, he narrated that:

2.7. Upon being presented with a draft of Restoring Integrity II with the reformatted signing
pages, Dean Leonen noticed the inclusion of the name of Justice Mendoza among the
"(SGD.)" signatories. As Justice Mendoza was not among those who had physically signed
Restoring Integrity I when it was previously circulated, Dean Leonen called the attention of
his staff to the inclusion of the Justice’s name among the "(SGD.)" signatories in Restoring
Integrity II.

2.8. Dean Leonen was told by his administrative officer that she had spoken to Justice
Mendoza over the phone on Friday, 06 August 2010. According to her, Justice Mendoza had
authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement for him as he agreed
fundamentally with its contents. Also according to her, Justice Mendoza was unable at that
time to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement himself as he was leaving for the United States
the following week. It would later turn out that this account was not entirely
accurate.91(Underscoring and italics supplied.)
Dean Leonen claimed that he "had no reason to doubt his administrative officer, however, and so
placed full reliance on her account"92 as "[t]here were indeed other faculty members who had also
authorized the Dean to indicate that they were signatories, even though they were at that time
unable to affix their signatures physically to the document."93

However, after receiving the Show Cause Resolution, Dean Leonen and his staff reviewed the
circumstances surrounding their effort to secure Justice Mendoza’s signature. It would turn out that
this was what actually transpired:

2.22.1. On Friday, 06 August 2010, when the dean’s staff talked to Justice Mendoza on the
phone, he [Justice Mendoza] indeed initially agreed to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement
as he fundamentally agreed with its contents. However, Justice Mendoza did not exactly say
that he authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement. Rather, he inquired if
he could authorize the dean to sign it for him as he was about to leave for the United States.
The dean’s staff informed him that they would, at any rate, still try to bring the Restoring
Integrity Statement to him.

2.22.2. Due to some administrative difficulties, Justice Mendoza was unable to sign the
Restoring Integrity Statement before he left for the U.S. the following week.

2.22.3. The staff was able to bring Restoring Integrity III to Justice Mendoza when he went to
the College to teach on 24 September 2010, a day after his arrival from the U.S. This time,
Justice Mendoza declined to sign.94

According to the Dean:

2.23. It was only at this time that Dean Leonen realized the true import of the call he received from
Justice Mendoza in late September. Indeed, Justice Mendoza confirmed that by the time the hard
copy of the Restoring Integrity Statement was brought to him shortly after his arrival from the U.S.,
he declined to sign it because it had already become controversial. At that time, he predicted that the
Court would take some form of action against the faculty. By then, and under those circumstances,
he wanted to show due deference to the Honorable Court, being a former Associate Justice and not
wishing to unduly aggravate the situation by signing the Statement.95 (Emphases supplied.)

With respect to the omission of Atty. Armovit’s name in the signature page of Restoring Integrity II
when he was one of the signatories of Restoring Integrity I and the erroneous description in Dean
Leonen’s August 10, 2010 letter that the version of the Statement submitted to the Court was signed
by 38 members of the UP Law Faculty, it was explained in the Compliance that:

Respondent Atty. Miguel Armovit physically signed Restoring Integrity I when it was circulated to
him. However, his name was inadvertently left out by Dean Leonen’s staff in the reformatting of the
signing pages in Restoring Integrity II. The dean assumed that his name was still included in the
reformatted signing pages, and so mentioned in his cover note to Chief Justice Corona that 38
members of the law faculty signed (the original 37 plus Justice Mendoza.)96

Dean Leonen argues that he should not be deemed to have submitted a dummy of the Statement
that was not a true and faithful reproduction of the same. He emphasized that the main body of the
Statement was unchanged in all its three versions and only the signature pages were not the same.
This purportedly is merely "reflective of [the Statement’s] essential nature as a ‘live’ public manifesto
meant to continuously draw adherents to its message, its signatory portion is necessarily evolving
and dynamic x x x many other printings of [the Statement] may be made in the future, each one
reflecting the same text but with more and more signatories."97 Adverting to criminal law by analogy,
Dean Leonen claims that "this is not an instance where it has been made to appear in a document
that a person has participated in an act when the latter did not in fact so participate"98 for he "did not
misrepresent which members of the faculty of the UP College of Law had agreed with the Restoring
Integrity Statement proper and/or had expressed their desire to be signatories thereto."99

In this regard, Dean Leonen believes that he had not committed any violation of Canon 10 or Rules
10.01 and 10.02 for he did not mislead nor misrepresent to the Court the contents of the Statement
or the identities of the UP Law faculty members who agreed with, or expressed their desire to be
signatories to, the Statement. He also asserts that he did not commit any violation of Rule 10.03 as
he "coursed [the Statement] through the appropriate channels by transmitting the same to Honorable
Chief Justice Corona for the latter’s information and proper disposition with the hope that its points
would be duly considered by the Honorable Court en banc."100 Citing Rudecon Management
Corporation v. Camacho,101 Dean Leonen posits that the required quantum of proof has not been
met in this case and that no dubious character or motivation for the act complained of existed to
warrant an administrative sanction for violation of the standard of honesty provided for by the Code
of Professional Responsibility.102

Dean Leonen ends his Compliance with an enumeration of nearly identical reliefs as the Common
Compliance, including the prayers for a hearing and for access to the records, evidence and
witnesses allegedly relevant not only in this case but also in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the ethical
investigation involving Justice Del Castillo.

Manifestation of Prof. Owen Lynch (Lynch Manifestation)

For his part, Prof. Owen Lynch (Prof. Lynch) manifests to this Court that he is not a member of the
Philippine bar; but he is a member of the bar of the State of Minnesota. He alleges that he first
taught as a visiting professor at the UP College of Law in 1981 to 1988 and returned in the same
capacity in 2010. He further alleges that "[h]e subscribes to the principle, espoused by this Court and
the Supreme Court of the United States, that ‘…[d]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited,
robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly
sharp attacks on government and public officials."103 In signing the Statement, he believes that "the
right to speak means the right to speak effectively."104 Citing the dissenting opinions in Manila Public
School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr.,105 Prof. Lynch argued that "[f]or speech to be effective, it
must be forceful enough to make the intended recipients listen"106 and "[t]he quality of education
would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression, when the very teachers who are supposed to
provide an example of courage and self-assertiveness to their pupils can speak only in timorous
whispers."107 Relying on the doctrine in In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re:
Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,108Prof. Lynch believed
that the Statement did not pose any danger, clear or present, of any substantive evil so as to remove
it from the protective mantle of the Bill of Rights (i.e., referring to the constitutional guarantee on free
speech).109 He also stated that he "has read the Compliance of the other respondents to the Show
Cause Resolution" and that "he signed the Restoring Integrity Statement for the same reasons they
did."110

ISSUES

Based on the Show Cause Resolution and a perusal of the submissions of respondents, the material
issues to be resolved in this case are as follows:

1.) Does the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of expression?
 2.) Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents’ academic freedom as law
professors?

3.) Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they should not be
disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility?

4.) Does the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explain why he should not
be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03?

5.) Are respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and in
relation to such hearing, are respondents entitled to require the production or presentation of
evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case (G.R.
No. 162230) and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to
have access to the records and transcripts of, and the witnesses and evidence presented, or
could have been presented, in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC)?

DISCUSSION

The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression.

It is respondents’ collective claim that the Court, with the issuance of the Show Cause Resolution,
has interfered with respondents’ constitutionally mandated right to free speech and expression. It
appears that the underlying assumption behind respondents’ assertion is the misconception that this
Court is denying them the right to criticize the Court’s decisions and actions, and that this Court
seeks to "silence" respondent law professors’ dissenting view on what they characterize as a
"legitimate public issue."

This is far from the truth. A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was
neither the fact that respondents had criticized a decision of the Court nor that they had charged one
of its members of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It was the manner of the criticism
and the contumacious language by which respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in
the Vinuya case, have expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for
the "proper disposition" and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said Resolution. The Show
Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the statements that the Court considered excessive and
uncalled for under the circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to
this Court of the UP Law faculty’s Restoring Integrity Statement.

To reiterate, it was not the circumstance that respondents expressed a belief that Justice Del Castillo
was guilty of plagiarism but rather their expression of that belief as "not only as an established fact,
but a truth"111 when it was "[o]f public knowledge [that there was] an ongoing investigation precisely
to determine the truth of such allegations."112 It was also pointed out in the Show Cause Resolution
that there was a pending motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision.113 The Show Cause
Resolution made no objections to the portions of the Restoring Integrity Statement that respondents
claimed to be "constructive" but only asked respondents to explain those portions of the said
Statement that by no stretch of the imagination could be considered as fair or constructive, to wit:

Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the Court. The
opening sentence alone is a grim preamble to the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads:
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had
suffered abuse during a time of war.

The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as
a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x x x.

The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the
resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of "polluted sources," the Court’s alleged
indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as well as the supposed alarming lack of
concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.114 x x x.
(Underscoring ours.)

To be sure, the Show Cause Resolution itself recognized respondents’ freedom of expression when
it stated that:

While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic
society, there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of
criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These
potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the
judiciary. The court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an
orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass
the administration of justice."

The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective
comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the
Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if the
case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the
flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This
runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold
the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have
taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.115 x x x. (Citations
omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied.)

Indeed, in a long line of cases, including those cited in respondents’ submissions, this Court has
held that the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally
primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or
interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence
has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding
the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair
comment and common decency.

As early as the 1935 case of Salcedo v. Hernandez,116 the Court found Atty. Vicente J. Francisco
both guilty of contempt and liable administratively for the following paragraph in his second motion
for reconsideration:

We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the resolution of this court, denying
our motion for reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the
petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the municipality
of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the means within our power in order that this error may
be corrected by the very court which has committed it, because we should not want that some
citizen, particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to
denounce, as he has a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the
victim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this honorable court and of
each and every member thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the same time we wish to state
sincerely that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands of voters
will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of 'sakdalism' and make the public lose
confidence in the administration of justice.117 (Emphases supplied.)

The highlighted phrases were considered by the Court as neither justified nor necessary and further
held that:

[I]n order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon in his
argument and to emphasize the force thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were
sufficient and the phrases in question were superfluous. In order to appeal to reason and justice, it is
highly improper and amiss to make trouble and resort to threats, as Attorney Vicente J. Francisco
has done, because both means are annoying and good practice can never sanction them by reason
of their natural tendency to disturb and hinder the free exercise of a serene and impartial judgment,
particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of questions submitted for resolution.

There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's motion contains a more
or less veiled threat to the court because it is insinuated therein, after the author shows the course
which the voters of Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his attempt, that they will resort to the
press for the purpose of denouncing, what he claims to be a judicial outrage of which his client has
been the victim; and because he states in a threatening manner with the intention of predisposing
the mind of the reader against the court, thus creating an atmosphere of prejudices against it in
order to make it odious in the public eye, that decisions of the nature of that referred to in his motion
promote distrust in the administration of justice and increase the proselytes of sakdalism, a
movement with seditious and revolutionary tendencies the activities of which, as is of public
knowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago. This cannot mean otherwise than contempt of
the dignity of the court and disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of Attorney Vicente J.
Francisco, because he presumes that the court is so devoid of the sense of justice that, if he did not
resort to intimidation, it would maintain its error notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven, with
good reasons, that it has acted erroneously.118 (Emphases supplied.)

Significantly, Salcedo is the decision from which respondents culled their quote from
the minority view of Justice Malcolm. Moreover, Salcedo concerned statements made in a pleading
filed by a counsel in a case, unlike the respondents here, who are neither parties nor counsels in
the Vinuya case and therefore, do not have any standing at all to interfere in the Vinuya case.
Instead of supporting respondents’ theory, Salcedo is authority for the following principle:

As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is
in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has
conferred upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being
what he now is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St. Rep., 492, 669), but also because
in so doing, he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and prevents
anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder,
thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power to which those
who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief.119 (Emphases supplied.)

Thus, the lawyer in Salcedo was fined and reprimanded for his injudicious statements in his
pleading, by accusing the Court of "erroneous ruling." Here, the respondents’ Statement goes way
beyond merely ascribing error to the Court.
Other cases cited by respondents likewise espouse rulings contrary to their position. In re: Atty.
Vicente Raul Almacen,120 cited in the Common Compliance and the Vasquez Compliance, was an
instance where the Court indefinitely suspended a member of the Bar for filing and releasing to the
press a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title" in protest of what he claimed was a great
injustice to his client committed by the Supreme Court. In the decision, the petition was described,
thus:

He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused to our
pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by
this Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
hypocrisy." In the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the
members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme
Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the
people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustices committed by this Court," and
that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated." He
ends his petition with a prayer that

"x x x a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned
attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the future and in the
event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice of the
noblest profession."121

It is true that in Almacen the Court extensively discussed foreign jurisprudence on the principle that a
lawyer, just like any citizen, has the right to criticize and comment upon actuations of public officers,
including judicial authority. However, the real doctrine in Almacen is that such criticism of the courts,
whether done in court or outside of it, must conform to standards of fairness and propriety. This case
engaged in an even more extensive discussion of the legal authorities sustaining this view. To 1awphi1

quote from that decision:

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over
the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and
abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is
a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.

For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux
and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more
basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He
vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity x x x to the courts;" and the Rules of Court
constantly remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial
officers." The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards the courts a respectful
attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of
its supreme importance."

As Mr. Justice Field puts it:

"x x x the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by express declaration take
upon themselves, when they are admitted to the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution
and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers. This
obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but
includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges
personally for their judicial acts." (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647, 652)

The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly
administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers — even those gifted
with superior intellect — are enjoined to rein up their tempers.

"The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the judge, and it
may tax his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline
and self-respect are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the
effectiveness of an army. The decisions of the judge must be obeyed, because he is the tribunal
appointed to decide, and the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering respectful
submission." (In Re Scouten, 40 Atl. 481)

xxxx

In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one
time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, statements made by an attorney in private conversations
or communications or in the course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to
bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary
action.122 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

In a similar vein, In re: Vicente Sotto,123 cited in the Vasquez Compliance, observed that:

[T]his Court, in In re Kelly, held the following:

The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has
always been considered as misbehavior, tending to obstruct the administration of justice, and
subjects such persons to contempt proceedings. Parties have a constitutional right to have their
causes tried fairly in court, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public clamor.
Every citizen has a profound personal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have
justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law, free from outside coercion
or interference. x x x.

Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the

decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded
it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well
taken and obviously erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its
decision. x x x.

xxxx

To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately "so many
blunders and injustices," that is to say, that it has been deciding in favor of one party knowing that
the law and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose favor the decision
was rendered, in many cases decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the
confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and consequently
to lower or degrade the administration of justice by this Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines
is, under the Constitution, the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief for
their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose
their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they
cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and
disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts
Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court,
to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote
distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other
institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation.124 (Emphases
and underscoring supplied.)

That the doctrinal pronouncements in these early cases are still good law can be easily gleaned
even from more recent jurisprudence.

In Choa v. Chiongson,125 the Court administratively disciplined a lawyer, through the imposition of a
fine, for making malicious and unfounded criticisms of a judge in the guise of an administrative
complaint and held, thus:

As an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice,
graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts
and to show respect to its officers. This does not mean, however, that a lawyer cannot criticize a
judge. As we stated in Tiongco vs. Hon. Aguilar:

It does not, however, follow that just because a lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot criticize
the courts. That is his right as a citizen, and it is even his duty as an officer of the court to avail of
such right. Thus, in In Re: Almacen (31 SCRA 562, 579-580 [1970]), this Court explicitly declared:

Hence, as a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but
also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he
"professionally answerable to a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not
expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am Dec. 657, 665).

xxxx

Nevertheless, such a right is not without limit. For, as this Court warned in Almacen:

But it is a cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and
abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is
a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct, that subjects a lawyer to
disciplinary action.

xxxx

Elsewise stated, the right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of
expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised responsibly, for every right
carries with it a corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom
with responsibility. x x x.

xxxx

Proscribed then are, inter alia, the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in
courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration (Rheem, supra), or tends necessarily to
undermine the confidence of people in the integrity of the members of this Court and to degrade the
administration of justice by this Court (In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 [1949]); or of offensive and abusive
language (In re: Rafael Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 [1974]); or abrasive and offensive language
(Yangson vs. Salandanan, 68 SCRA 42 [1975]; or of disrespectful, offensive, manifestly baseless,
and malicious statements in pleadings or in a letter addressed to the judge (Baja vs. Macandog, 158
SCRA [1988], citing the resolution of 19 January 1988 in Phil. Public Schools Teachers Association
vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 76180, and Ceniza vs. Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295 [1984]); or of
disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for remarks (Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,
177 SCRA 87 [1989]).

Any criticism against a judge made in the guise of an administrative complaint which is clearly
unfounded and impelled by ulterior motive will not excuse the lawyer responsible therefor under his
duty of fidelity to his client. x x x.126 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)

In Saberon v. Larong,127 where this Court found respondent lawyer guilty of simple misconduct for
using intemperate language in his pleadings and imposed a fine upon him, we had the occasion to
state:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:

CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.

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.

To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong
language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.

However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds
with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
personalityand to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.128

Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of
fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech. Even In the Matter of Petition for
Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission on
Elections,129 relied upon by respondents in the Common Compliance, held that:

From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right is not
susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the
press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however a literal interpretation. Freedom of
expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to insist that at all times and under all
circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that
press for recognition. x x x.130 (Emphasis supplied.)

One such societal value that presses for recognition in the case at bar is the threat to judicial
independence and the orderly administration of justice that immoderate, reckless and unfair attacks
on judicial decisions and institutions pose. This Court held as much in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan
and Gonzales,131 where we indefinitely suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for issuing to
the media statements grossly disrespectful towards the Court in relation to a pending case, to wit:

Respondent Gonzales is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. No one seeks to
deny him that right, least of all this Court. What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of
speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of
expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of
equally important public interest. One of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the
integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy between free
expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. For the protection and
maintenance of freedom of expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning
and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, in other words, of viable independent
institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community. x x x.132 (Emphases
supplied.)

For this reason, the Court cannot uphold the view of some respondents133 that the Statement
presents no grave or imminent danger to a legitimate public interest.

The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents’ academic freedom.

It is not contested that respondents herein are, by law and jurisprudence, guaranteed academic
freedom and undisputably, they are free to determine what they will teach their students and how
they will teach. We must point out that there is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates
upon respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it
is not inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom for this Court to subject lawyers who teach
law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct and speech, coupled with undue intervention in
favor of a party in a pending case, without observing proper procedure, even if purportedly done in
their capacity as teachers.

A novel issue involved in the present controversy, for it has not been passed upon in any previous
case before this Court, is the question of whether lawyers who are also law professors can invoke
academic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding for intemperate statements tending
to pressure the Court or influence the outcome of a case or degrade the courts.

Applying by analogy the Court’s past treatment of the "free speech" defense in other bar discipline
cases, academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The implicit
ruling in the jurisprudence discussed above is that the constitutional right to freedom of expression of
members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to
the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. To our mind,
the reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with
greater force to the academic freedom of law professors.

It would do well for the Court to remind respondents that, in view of the broad definition in Cayetano
v. Monsod,134lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike
professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound
by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law
professors must be measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to
acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the
fact that they are lawyers.

Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents’ proposition in the Common Compliance that
their issuance of the Statement was in keeping with their duty to "participate in the development of
the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the
administration of justice" under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we cannot agree
that they have fulfilled that same duty in keeping with the demands of Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give
due respect to legal processes and the courts, and to avoid conduct that tends to influence the
courts. Members of the Bar cannot be selective regarding which canons to abide by given particular
situations. With more reason that law professors are not allowed this indulgence, since they are
expected to provide their students exemplars of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole
and not just their preferred portions thereof.

The Court’s rulings on the submissions regarding the charge of violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13.

Having disposed of respondents’ main arguments of freedom of expression and academic freedom,
the Court considers here the other averments in their submissions.

With respect to good faith, respondents’ allegations presented two main ideas: (a) the validity of their
position regarding the plagiarism charge against Justice Del Castillo, and (b) their pure motive to
spur this Court to take the correct action on said issue.

The Court has already clarified that it is not the expression of respondents’ staunch belief that
Justice Del Castillo has committed a misconduct that the majority of this Court has found so
unbecoming in the Show Cause Resolution. No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the
righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in
public behavior that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute. This doctrine,
which we have repeatedly upheld in such cases as Salcedo, In re Almacen and Saberong, should be
applied in this case with more reason, as the respondents, not parties to the Vinuya case,
denounced the Court and urged it to change its decision therein, in a public statement using
contumacious language, which with temerity they subsequently submitted to the Court for "proper
disposition."

That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in favor of the Malaya Lolas was
one of the objectives of the Statement could be seen in the following paragraphs from the same:

And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but
of women elsewhere in the world who have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in
times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered
and misinterpreted texts.

xxxx

(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial
function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left
without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein.135 (Emphases and underscoring
supplied.)
Whether or not respondents’ views regarding the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case had valid basis
was wholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech and conduct. These are two separate
matters to be properly threshed out in separate proceedings. The Court considers it highly
inappropriate, if not tantamount to dissembling, the discussion devoted in one of the compliances
arguing the guilt of Justice Del Castillo. In the Common Compliance, respondents even go so far as
to attach documentary evidence to support the plagiarism charges against Justice Del Castillo in the
present controversy. The ethics case of Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC), with the filing of
a motion for reconsideration, was still pending at the time of the filing of respondents’ submissions in
this administrative case. As respondents themselves admit, they are neither parties nor counsels in
the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo. Notwithstanding their professed overriding interest in
said ethics case, it is not proper procedure for respondents to bring up their plagiarism arguments
here especially when it has no bearing on their own administrative case.

Still on motive, it is also proposed that the choice of language in the Statement was intended for
effective speech; that speech must be "forceful enough to make the intended recipients
listen."136 One wonders what sort of effect respondents were hoping for in branding this Court as,
among others, callous, dishonest and lacking in concern for the basic values of decency and
respect. The Court fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if we allow respondents to send a
signal to their students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their
point of view is to be offensive.

This brings to our mind the letters of Dr. Ellis and Prof. Tams which were deliberately quoted in full in
the narration of background facts to illustrate the sharp contrast between the civil tenor of these
letters and the antagonistic irreverence of the Statement. In truth, these foreign authors are the ones
who would expectedly be affected by any perception of misuse of their works. Notwithstanding that
they are beyond the disciplinary reach of this Court, they still obviously took pains to convey their
objections in a deferential and scholarly manner. It is unfathomable to the Court why respondents
could not do the same. These foreign authors’ letters underscore the universality of the tenet that
legal professionals must deal with each other in good faith and due respect. The mark of the true
intellectual is one who can express his opinions logically and soberly without resort to exaggerated
rhetoric and unproductive recriminations.

As for the claim that the respondents’ noble intention is to spur the Court to take "constructive action"
on the plagiarism issue, the Court has some doubts as to its veracity. For if the Statement was
primarily meant for this Court’s consideration, why was the same published and reported in the
media first before it was submitted to this Court? It is more plausible that the Statement was
prepared for consumption by the general public and designed to capture media attention as part of
the effort to generate interest in the most controversial ground in the Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration filed in the Vinuya case by Atty. Roque, who is respondents’ colleague on the UP
Law faculty.

In this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a lack of observance of fidelity and due respect
to the Court, particularly when respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the Vinuya
decision and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at the time of the Statement’s issuance, were
still both sub judice or pending final disposition of the Court. These facts have been widely
publicized. On this point, respondents allege that at the time the Statement was first drafted on July
27, 2010, they did not know of the constitution of the Ethics Committee and they had issued the
Statement under the belief that this Court intended to take no action on the ethics charge against
Justice Del Castillo. Still, there was a significant lapse of time from the drafting and printing of the
Statement on July 27, 2010 and its publication and submission to this Court in early August when
the Ethics Committee had already been convened. If it is true that the respondents’ outrage was
fueled by their perception of indifference on the part of the Court then, when it became known that
the Court did intend to take action, there was nothing to prevent respondents from recalibrating the
Statement to take this supervening event into account in the interest of fairness.

Speaking of the publicity this case has generated, we likewise find no merit in the respondents’
reliance on various news reports and commentaries in the print media and the internet as proof that
they are being unfairly "singled out." On the contrary, these same annexes to the Common
Compliance show that it is not enough for one to criticize the Court to warrant the institution of
disciplinary137 or contempt138 action. This Court takes into account the nature of the criticism and
weighs the possible repercussions of the same on the Judiciary. When the criticism comes from
persons outside the profession who may not have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals
whose personal or other interests in making the criticism are obvious, the Court may perhaps
tolerate or ignore them. However, when law professors are the ones who appear to have lost sight of
the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties,
this Court cannot remain silent for such silence would have a grave implication on legal education in
our country.

With respect to the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance, considering that this
appears to be the first time these respondents have been involved in disciplinary proceedings of this
sort, the Court is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were for the most part well-
intentioned in the issuance of the Statement. However, it is established in jurisprudence that where
the excessive and contumacious language used is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only
be mitigating. As this Court expounded in Salcedo:

In his defense, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco states that it was not his intention to offend the court or
to be recreant to the respect thereto but, unfortunately, there are his phrases which need no further
comment. Furthermore, it is a well settled rule in all places where the same conditions and practice
as those in this jurisdiction obtain, that want of intention is no excuse from liability (13 C. J., 45).
Neither is the fact that the phrases employed are justified by the facts a valid defense:

"Where the matter is abusive or insulting, evidence that the language used was justified by the facts
is not admissible as a defense. Respect for the judicial office should always be observed and
enforced." (In re Stewart, 118 La., 827; 43 S., 455.) Said lack or want of intention constitutes at most
an extenuation of liability in this case, taking into consideration Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's state
of mind, according to him when he prepared said motion. This court is disposed to make such
concession. However, in order to avoid a recurrence thereof and to prevent others, by following the
bad example, from taking the same course, this court considers it imperative to treat the case of said
attorney with the justice it deserves.139 (Emphases supplied.)

Thus, the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance should, notwithstanding their claim of
good faith, be reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the
courts and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on
pending matters or to denigrate the courts and the administration of justice.

With respect to Prof. Vasquez, the Court favorably notes the differences in his Compliance
compared to his colleagues. In our view, he was the only one among the respondents who showed
true candor and sincere deference to the Court. He was able to give a straightforward account of
how he came to sign the Statement. He was candid enough to state that his agreement to the
Statement was in principle and that the reason plagiarism was a "fair topic of discussion" among the
UP Law faculty prior to the promulgation of the October 12, 2010 Decision in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
was the uncertainty brought about by a division of opinion on whether or not willful or deliberate
intent was an element of plagiarism. He was likewise willing to acknowledge that he may have been
remiss in failing to assess the effect of the language of the Statement and could have used more
care. He did all this without having to retract his position on the plagiarism issue, without demands
for undeserved reliefs (as will be discussed below) and without baseless insinuations of deprivation
of due process or of prejudgment. This is all that this Court expected from respondents, not for them
to sacrifice their principles but only that they recognize that they themselves may have committed
some ethical lapse in this affair. We commend Prof. Vaquez for showing that at least one of the
respondents can grasp the true import of the Show Cause Resolution involving them. For these
reasons, the Court finds Prof. Vasquez’s Compliance satisfactory.

As for Prof. Lynch, in view of his Manifestation that he is a member of the Bar of the State of
Minnesota and, therefore, not under the disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused
from these proceedings. However, he should be reminded that while he is engaged as a professor in
a Philippine law school he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his
students even without the threat of sanction from this Court. For even if one is not bound by the
Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Philippine Bar, civility and respect among
legal professionals of any nationality should be aspired for under universal standards of decency and
fairness.

The Court’s ruling on Dean Leonen’s Compliance regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10.

To recall, the Show Cause Resolution directed Dean Leonen to show cause why he should not be
disciplinary dealt with for violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 and for submitting a
"dummy" that was not a true and faithful reproduction of the signed Statement.

In his Compliance, Dean Leonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrity II was not a true and
faithful reproduction of the actual signed copy, Restoring Integrity I, because looking at the text or
the body, there were no differences between the two. He attempts to downplay the discrepancies in
the signature pages of the two versions of the Statement (i.e., Restoring Integrity I and Restoring
Integrity II) by claiming that it is but expected in "live" public manifestos with dynamic and evolving
pages as more and more signatories add their imprimatur thereto. He likewise stresses that he is not
administratively liable because he did not misrepresent the members of the UP Law faculty who
"had agreed with the Restoring Integrity Statement proper and/or who had expressed their desire to
be signatories thereto."140

To begin with, the Court cannot subscribe to Dean Leonen’s implied view that the signatures in the
Statement are not as significant as its contents. Live public manifesto or not, the Statement was
formally submitted to this Court at a specific point in time and it should reflect accurately its
signatories at that point. The value of the Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies precisely in
the identities of the persons who have signed it, since the Statement’s persuasive authority mainly
depends on the reputation and stature of the persons who have endorsed the same. Indeed, it is
apparent from respondents’ explanations that their own belief in the "importance" of their positions
as UP law professors prompted them to publicly speak out on the matter of the plagiarism issue in
the Vinuya case.

Further, in our assessment, the true cause of Dean Leonen’s predicament is the fact that he did not
from the beginning submit the signed copy, Restoring Integrity I, to this Court on August 11, 2010
and, instead, submitted Restoring Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted" signature pages. It
would turn out, according to Dean Leonen’s account, that there were errors in the retyping of the
signature pages due to lapses of his unnamed staff. First, an unnamed administrative officer in the
dean’s office gave the dean inaccurate information that led him to allow the inclusion of Justice
Mendoza as among the signatories of Restoring Integrity II. Second, an unnamed staff also failed to
type the name of Atty. Armovit when encoding the signature pages of Restoring Integrity II when in
fact he had signed Restoring Integrity I.
The Court can understand why for purposes of posting on a bulletin board or a website a signed
document may have to be reformatted and signatures may be indicated by the notation (SGD). This
is not unusual. We are willing to accept that the reformatting of documents meant for posting to
eliminate blanks is necessitated by vandalism concerns.

However, what is unusual is the submission to a court, especially this Court, of a signed document
for the Court’s consideration that did not contain the actual signatures of its authors. In most cases, it
is the original signed document that is transmitted to the Court or at the very least a photocopy of the
actual signed document. Dean Leonen has not offered any explanation why he deviated from this
practice with his submission to the Court of Restoring Integrity II on August 11, 2010. There was
nothing to prevent the dean from submitting Restoring Integrity I to this Court even with its blanks
and unsigned portions. Dean Leonen cannot claim fears of vandalism with respect to court
submissions for court employees are accountable for the care of documents and records that may
come into their custody. Yet, Dean Leonen deliberately chose to submit to this Court the facsimile
that did not contain the actual signatures and his silence on the reason therefor is in itself a display
of lack of candor.

Still, a careful reading of Dean Leonen’s explanations yield the answer. In the course of his
explanation of his willingness to accept his administrative officer’s claim that Justice Mendoza
agreed to be indicated as a signatory, Dean Leonen admits in a footnote that other professors had
likewise only authorized him to indicate them as signatories and had not in fact signed the
Statement. Thus, at around the time Restoring Integrity II was printed, posted and submitted to this
Court, at least one purported signatory thereto had not actually signed the same. Contrary to Dean
Leonen’s proposition, that is precisely tantamount to making it appear to this Court that a person or
persons participated in an act when such person or persons did not.

We are surprised that someone like Dean Leonen, with his reputation for perfection and stringent
standards of intellectual honesty, could proffer the explanation that there was no misrepresentation
when he allowed at least one person to be indicated as having actually signed the Statement when
all he had was a verbal communication of an intent to sign. In the case of Justice Mendoza, what he
had was only hearsay information that the former intended to sign the Statement. If Dean Leonen
was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness in his dealings with the Court, we see no
reason why he could not have waited until all the professors who indicated their desire to sign the
Statement had in fact signed before transmitting the Statement to the Court as a duly signed
document. If it was truly impossible to secure some signatures, such as that of Justice Mendoza who
had to leave for abroad, then Dean Leonen should have just resigned himself to the signatures that
he was able to secure.

We cannot imagine what urgent concern there was that he could not wait for actual signatures
before submission of the Statement to this Court. As respondents all asserted, they were neither
parties to nor counsels in the Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo. The
Statement was neither a pleading with a deadline nor a required submission to the Court; rather, it
was a voluntary submission that Dean Leonen could do at any time.

In sum, the Court likewise finds Dean Leonen’s Compliance unsatisfactory. However, the Court is
willing to ascribe these isolated lapses in judgment of Dean Leonen to his misplaced zeal in pursuit
of his objectives. In due consideration of Dean Leonen’s professed good intentions, the Court deems
it sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings
with the Court as required under Canon 10.
Respondents’ requests for a hearing, for production/presentation of evidence bearing on the
plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in G.R. No. 162230 and A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, and for
access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are unmeritorious.

In the Common Compliance, respondents named therein asked for alternative reliefs should the
Court find their Compliance unsatisfactory, that is, that the Show Cause Resolution be set for
hearing and for that purpose, they be allowed to require the production or presentation of witnesses
and evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case (G.R. No.
162230) and the plagiarism case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have
access to the records of, and evidence that were presented or may be presented in the ethics case
against Justice Del Castillo. The prayer for a hearing and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-
17-SC was substantially echoed in Dean Leonen’s separate Compliance. In Prof. Juan-Bautista’s
Compliance, she similarly expressed the sentiment that "[i]f the Restoring Integrity Statement can be
considered indirect contempt, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, such may be
punished only after charge and hearing."141 It is this group of respondents’ premise that these reliefs
are necessary for them to be accorded full due process.

The Court finds this contention unmeritorious.

Firstly, it would appear that the confusion as to the necessity of a hearing in this case springs largely
from its characterization as a special civil action for indirect contempt in the Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Sereno (to the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution) and her reliance therein on the
majority’s purported failure to follow the procedure in Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as her main
ground for opposition to the Show Cause Resolution.

However, once and for all, it should be clarified that this is not an indirect contempt proceeding and
Rule 71 (which requires a hearing) has no application to this case. As explicitly ordered in the Show
Cause Resolution this case was docketed as an administrative matter.

The rule that is relevant to this controversy is Rule 139-B, Section 13, on disciplinary proceedings
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court, to wit:

SEC. 13. Supreme Court Investigators.—In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court
or in other proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the
case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a
lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6
to 11 hereof, save that the review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the
Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing provision, it cannot be denied that a formal investigation, through a referral to the
specified officers, is merely discretionary, not mandatory on the Court. Furthermore, it is only if the
Court deems such an investigation necessary that the procedure in Sections 6 to 11 of Rule 139-A
will be followed.

As respondents are fully aware, in general, administrative proceedings do not require a trial type
hearing. We have held that:

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be
heard, hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the
opportunity to present his side. A formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances
essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.142 (Emphases supplied.)

In relation to bar discipline cases, we have had the occasion to rule in Pena v. Aparicio143 that:

Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they
do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct
of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu
proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or
not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his actuations
as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the
proper and honest administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion
to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.144 (Emphases supplied.)

In Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former Clerk of Court – Br. 81, Romblon – On the
Prohibition from Engaging in the Private Practice of Law,145 we further observed that:

[I]n several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further inquiry or resort to any formal
investigation where the facts on record sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of their
administrative liability.

In Prudential Bank v. Castro, the Court disbarred a lawyer without need of any further investigation
after considering his actions based on records showing his unethical misconduct; the misconduct not
only cast dishonor on the image of both the Bench and the Bar, but was also inimical to public
interest and welfare. In this regard, the Court took judicial notice of several cases handled by the
errant lawyer and his cohorts that revealed their modus operandi in circumventing the payment of
the proper judicial fees for the astronomical sums they claimed in their cases. The Court held that
those cases sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of respondents' administrative
liability, without need for further inquiry into the matter under the principle of res ipsa loquitur.

Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in Richards v. Asoy, that no evidentiary hearing is
required before the respondent may be disciplined for professional misconduct already established
by the facts on record.

xxxx

These cases clearly show that the absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation
of an errant lawyer do not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority,
as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard. As we stated
earlier, Atty. Buffe has been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her
letter-query and Manifestation filed before this Court.146(Emphases supplied.)

Under the rules and jurisprudence, respondents clearly had no right to a hearing and their
reservation of a right they do not have has no effect on these proceedings. Neither have they shown
in their pleadings any justification for this Court to call for a hearing in this instance. They have not
specifically stated what relevant evidence, documentary or testimonial, they intend to present in their
defense that will necessitate a formal hearing.
Instead, it would appear that they intend to present records, evidence, and witnesses bearing on the
plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case and in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC on the
assumption that the findings of this Court which were the bases of the Show Cause Resolution were
made in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, or were related to the conclusions of the Court in the Decision in that
case. This is the primary reason for their request for access to the records and evidence presented
in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.

This assumption on the part of respondents is erroneous. To illustrate, the only incident in A.M. No.
10-7-17-SC that is relevant to the case at bar is the fact that the submission of the actual signed
copy of the Statement (or Restoring Integrity I, as Dean Leonen referred to it) happened there. Apart
from that fact, it bears repeating that the proceedings in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the ethics case
against Justice Del Castillo, is a separate and independent matter from this case.

To find the bases of the statements of the Court in the Show Cause Resolution that the respondents
issued a Statement with language that the Court deems objectionable during the pendency of the
Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo, respondents need to go no further than
the four corners of the Statement itself, its various versions, news reports/columns (many of which
respondents themselves supplied to this Court in their Common Compliance) and internet sources
that are already of public knowledge.

Considering that what respondents are chiefly required to explain are the language of the Statement
and the circumstances surrounding the drafting, printing, signing, dissemination, etc., of its various
versions, the Court does not see how any witness or evidence in the ethics case of Justice Del
Castillo could possibly shed light on these facts. To be sure, these facts are within the knowledge of
respondents and if there is any evidence on these matters the same would be in their possession.

We find it significant that in Dean Leonen’s Compliance he narrated how as early as September
2010, i.e., before the Decision of this Court in the ethics case of Justice Del Castillo on October 12,
2010 and before the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution, retired Supreme Court Justice
Vicente V. Mendoza, after being shown a copy of the Statement upon his return from abroad,
predicted that the Court would take some form of action on the Statement. By simply reading a hard
copy of the Statement, a reasonable person, even one who "fundamentally agreed" with the
Statement’s principles, could foresee the possibility of court action on the same on an implicit
recognition that the Statement, as worded, is not a matter this Court should simply let pass. This
belies respondents’ claim that it is necessary for them to refer to any record or evidence in A.M. No.
10-7-17-SC in order to divine the bases for the Show Cause Resolution.

If respondents have chosen not to include certain pieces of evidence in their respective compliances
or chosen not to make a full defense at this time, because they were counting on being granted a
hearing, that is respondents’ own look-out. Indeed, law professors of their stature are supposed to
be aware of the above jurisprudential doctrines regarding the non-necessity of a hearing in
disciplinary cases. They should bear the consequence of the risk they have taken.

Thus, respondents’ requests for a hearing and for access to the records of, and evidence presented
in, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC should be denied for lack of merit.

A final word

In a democracy, members of the legal community are hardly expected to have monolithic views on
any subject, be it a legal, political or social issue. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously
propound their points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession. This
Court is certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the
same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All
lawyers, whether they are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners, are officers of
the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the
Bar, to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemption from this
sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in the academic community or the law
school to which they belong.

WHEREFORE, this administrative matter is decided as follows:

(1) With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his submission, the Court finds his
Compliance to be satisfactory.

(2) The Common Compliance of 35 respondents, namely, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen,
Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo
V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T.
Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba,
Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria
J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel,
Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose
C. Laureta, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc,
Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Susan D. Villanueva and Dina D. Lucenario, is found
UNSATISFACTORY. These 35 respondent law professors are reminded of their lawyerly
duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due
respect to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to
influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of
justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.

(3) The separate Compliance of Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding the charge of
violation of Canon 10 is found UNSATISFACTORY. He is further ADMONISHED to be more
mindful of his duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and
professor of law, to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court and
warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

(4) Prof. Lynch, who is not a member of the Philippine bar, is excused from these
proceedings. However, he is reminded that while he is engaged as a professor in a
Philippine law school he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional conduct
to his students even without the threat of sanction from this Court.

(5) Finally, respondents’ requests for a hearing and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-
7-17-SC are denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.
A.C. No. 7437 August 17, 2016

AVIDA LAND CORPORATION (FORMERLY LAGUNA PROPERTIES HOLDINGS,

INC.), Complainant
vs.
ATTY. AL C. ARGOSINO, Respondent

DECISION

SERENO, CJ.:

The only issue before Us is whether respondent's act of filing numerous pleadings, that caused
delay in the execution of a final judgment, constitutes professional misconduct in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

In its questioned Resolution1 , the Board of Governors (Board) of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) adopted and approved the Report and Recommendation2 of the Investigating
Commissioner,3 who found respondent guilty of violating Canon 12, Rule 12.044 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility for delaying the enforcement of a writ of execution, and recommended
that the latter be reprimanded or censured with a stem warning that a repetition of the same
behavior in the future shall merit a harsher penalty.5

Antecedent Facts

Complainant is a Philippine corporation engaged in the development and sale of subdivision houses
and lots.6Respondent was counsel for Rodman Construction & Development Corporation (Rodman).7

Complainant entered into a Contract to Sell with Rodman,8 under which the latter was to acquire
from the former a subdivision house and lot in Santa Rosa, Laguna through bank financing. In the
event that such financing would be disapproved, Rodman was supposed to pay the full contract
price of ₱4,4 l 2,254.00, less the downpayment of ₱l,323,676.20, within 15 days from its receipt of
the loan disapproval.9

After settling the downpayment, Rodman took possession of the property.10

In three separate letters11 , complainant demanded that Rodman pay the outstanding balance of
P3,088,577.80.12Both parties agreed that the amount would be paid on a deferred basis within 18
months.13

Rodman made a partial payment of ₱404,782.56 on 22 March 1999. It also claimed to have made
other payments amounting to ₱1,458,765.06 from March 1999 to July 1999, which complainant
disputed.14

Consequently, complainant rescinded the Contract to Sell by notarial act, and demanded that
Rodman vacate the subject property.15

As Rodman remained in possession of the property,16 complainant filed an unlawful detainer case
against the former before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Makati City.17
Soon after, Rodman filed a Complaint before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)
seeking the nullification of the rescission of the Contract to Sell. It also prayed for the accounting of
payments and the fixing of the period upon which the balance of the purchase price should be paid.18

The MTC took cognizance of Rodman's HLURB Complaint, and dismissed the unlawful detainer
case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.19

HLURB Regional Office No. IV (HLURB Regional Office), through its arbiter Atty. Ma. Perpetua Y.
Aquino, similarly dismissed Rodman's Complaint and ordered it to pay damages and attorney's
fees.20 Rodman appealed the ruling to the HLURB Board of Commissioners (HLURB Board). 21

In its subsequent Decision,22 the HLURB Board modified the arbiter's ruling, directing Rodman "to
immediately pay its outstanding balance failing in which respondent shall have the right to rescind
the contract subject to a refund of all the sums paid by complainant less deductions as may be
stipulated in the contract and less monthly compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of 1
% of the contract price per month."23

Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration24 of the HLURB Board's Decision, questioning the
order to refund the sums paid by Rodman less deductions in case of a rescission of the contract.
Rodman filed a Comment/Opposition25 to complainant's motion and sought a clarification of certain
aspects of the Decision, 26 but did not move for reconsideration.

The HLURB Board thereafter issued a Resolution27 modifying its earlier Decision. Thus:
1âwphi1

x x x [T]he complainant (Rodman) is directed to immediately pay to the respondent (herein

complainant) its outstanding balance of ₱l,814,513.27, including interests and penalties which may
have accrued in the meantime, failing in which, the respondent shall have the right to rescind the
contract subject to a refund of all the sums paid by the complainant less deductions as may be
stipulated in the contract and less monthly compensation for the use of the premises at the rate of 1
% of the contract price per month.

As neither of the parties appealed the judgment within the period allowed, it became final and
executory.

The parties thereafter attempted to arrive at a settlement on the judgment, but their efforts were in
vain. 28 With the judgment award still not satisfied after the lapse of six months, complainant filed a
motion for writs of execution and possession29 before the HLURB Board. Respondent filed an
Opposition/Comment on the motion and subsequently a Rejoinder30 to complainant's Reply. 31

In an Order32 dated 10 August 2006, the HLURB Board granted complainant's motion and remanded
the case records to the HLURB Regional Office for proceedings on the execution of the judgment
and/or other appropriate disposition.

Respondent moved for reconsideration of the Order dated 10 August 2006, 33 raising issues on the
computation of interests. Complainant filed an Opposition34 and Rejoinder,35 to which respondent filed
a Reply36 and Sur-rejoinder 37

On 17 January 2007, the HLURB Board issued an Order38 denying Rodman's Motion for
Reconsideration. It said that the computation of interests and penalties, as well as other matters
concerning the implementation of the final and executory Decision, shall be dealt with in the
execution proceedings before the Regional Office. It furthermore enjoined the parties from filing any
pleading in the guise of an appeal on collateral issues or questions already passed upon.39

On 5 March 2007, respondent filed a Motion for Computation of Interest40 before the HLURB
Regional Office, citing the disagreement between the parties as to the reckoning date of the accrual
of interest. Complainant filed its Opposition with Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution and
Possession.41 In its Order42 dated 31 July 2007, the HLURB Regional Office accordingly computed
the interest due, arriving at the total amount of ₱2,685,479.64 as payment due to complainant. It
also directed the issuance of a Writ of Execution implementing the HLURB Board's earlier
Resolution.43

Instead however of complying with the Order and the Writ of Execution, 44 respondent, on behalf of
Rodman, filed a Motion (1) to Quash the Writ of Execution; (2) for Clarification; and (3) to Set the
Case for Conference.45 The said motion injected new issues and claims and demanded the inclusion
in the Order of a "provision that upon actual receipt of the amount of ₱2,685,479.64, [complainant]
should simultaneously turn-over the duplicate original title to Rodman." (Emphasis omitted)

Respondent also filed a Petition46 to Cite Complainant in Contempt for issuing a demand letter to
Rodman despite the pendency of the latter's Motion to Quash the Writ of Execution.

On 7 November 2007, the HLURB Regional Office summoned the parties to a conference to thresh
out the problems with the execution of the writ. The conference, however, failed to serve its purpose.

Respondent thereafter moved for the inhibition of Atty. Aquino as arbiter of the case and for the
setting of a hearing on the Petition to Cite Complainant in Contempt.47 The motion alleged that
Arbiter Aquino had shown bias in favor of complainant, and that she had failed to set the Petition for
hearing.48

or earmg.

In an Order dated 23 April 2008,49 the HL URB Regional Office (1) denied the motion for inhibition;
(2) granted complainant's Motion for Issuance of Alias Writ of Execution and Writ of Possession; and
(3) directed complainant to comment on the Petition citing the latter for contempt.

Respondent moved for reconsideration of the aforementioned Order, reiterating that Arbiter Aquino
should inhibit herself from the case because of her bias. Arbiter Aquino eventually yielded and
ordered the re-raffle of the case, which went to Arbiter Raymundo A. Foronda.

When complainant filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve Pending Motion for the Issuance of
an Alias Writ of Execution, respondent submitted his vehement Opposition. He insisted that his
Motion to be Furnished with Notice of Re-raffle should be acted upon first and argued that "the
merits of the instant case as well as the motions filed in relation thereto must be re-evaluated by the
new handling arbiter after the re-raffling x x x."

On 5 January 2009, respondent filed a Manifestation on the Notice of Conference issued by Arbiter
Foronda. The Manifestation stated that Rodman would be attending the conference, not to submit
itself to the jurisdiction of Arbiter Foronda, but to facilitate the re-raffling of the case.

On 16 January 2009, respondent filed a Motion for Inhibition against Arbiter Foronda, claiming that
his designation violated due process. He said the re-raffle was questionable because he was not
1âwphi1

notified of its conduct despite his earlier Motion to be Furnished with Notice of Re-raffle.
Thereafter, the parties submitted various pleadings on the issue of whether or not Arbiter Foronda
could rule on the pending motions.

In a Resolution dated 22 September 2009, Arbiter Foronda held that (1) the notice of re-raffle was
not an indispensable prerequisite for a substitute arbiter to have jurisdiction over a case at the
execution stage; (2) the claim of Rodman that its Motion for Reconsideration of the 23 April 2008
Order had remained unresolved was rendered moot by Arbiter Aquino's eventual inhibition from the
case; and (3) Rodman's prayer for the summary dismissal of complainant's motions to resolve the
Motion for the Issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution was denied.

The 22 September 2009 Resolution put an end to the long-drawn-out dispute, as respondent did not
file any more pleadings.

Administrative Complaint Against Respondent

On 21 February 2007, in the midst of the squabble over the HLURB case, complainant - through its
vice president for project development Steven J. Dy - filed a Complaint-Affidavit50 against respondent
for alleged professional misconduct and violation of the Lawyer's Oath. The Complaint alleged that
respondent's conduct in relation to the HLURB case manifested a disregard of the following tenets:51

1. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man's cause.

2. Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court.

3. Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat
the ends of justice.

4. Canon 12 - A lawlyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and
efficient administration of justice.

5. Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the

execution of a judgment or misuse court processes.

In his Comment, 52 respondent claimed that what primarily caused the delays in the HLURB case
were the legal blunders of complainant's counsel, to wit:

1. It took complainant's counsel a period of six months to file a Motion for Writ of Execution of the
HLURB Board's Decision dated 22 June 2005.53

2. The Motion for Writ of Execution was filed before the HLURB Board, which as an appellate body
had no jurisdiction to issue the writ.54

Respondent also raised the issue of complainant's counsel's erroneous acts of notarial rescission
and filing of an ejectment suit before the trial court. These acts allegedly contributed to the delay in
the resolution of the dispute.55

Further, respondent argued that he could not have possibly caused delays in the execution of the
Decision dated 22 June 2005 at the time the instant Complaint was filed on 21 February 2007, as
complainant filed its Motion for Writ of Execution before the HLURB Regional Office only in April
2007. 56

Lastly, respondent asserted that he merely followed his legal oath by defending the cause of his
client with utmost dedication, diligence, and good faith.57

As respondent allegedly continued performing dilatory and frivolous tactics, complainant filed
Supplemental Complaints58 against him. The Court referred this case to the IBP for investigation,
report, and recommendation.59

On 22 June 2013, the IBP issued a Resolution adopting and approving the Investigating
Commissioner's Report and Recommendation on the Complaint.60 Neitherparty filed a motion for
reconsideration or a petition within the pereiod allowed.61

The Ruling of the Court

Respondent is guilty of profession misconduct.

Despite the simplicity of the issue involved in the HLURB case, the path towards its resolution
became long, tedious, and frustrating because of the deliberate attempts of respondent to delay the
actual execution of the judgment therein. He continued to file pleadings over issues already passed
upon even after being enjoined not to do so, and made unfounded accusations of bias or procedural
defects. These acts manifest his propensity to disregard the authority of a tribunal and abuse court
processes, to the detriment of the administration of justice.

The defense that respondent is merely defending the cause of his client is untenable.

As a lawyer, respondent indeed owes fidelity to the cause of his client and is expected to serve the
latter with competence and diligence. As such, respondent is entitled to employ every honorable
means to defend the cause of his client and secure what is due the latter.62

Professional rules, however, impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge it with necessary
restrictions and qualifications.63 Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, lawyers are required
to exert every effort and consider it their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.64 The Code also obliges lawyers to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of their client.65

In Millare v. Montero,66 the Court ruled that it is unethical for a lawyer to abuse or wrongfully use the
judicial process - such as the filing of dilatory motions, repetitious litigation, and frivolous appeals -
for the sole purpose of frustrating and delaying the execution of a judgment.

In Garcia v. Francisco,67 a lawyer willfully and knowingly abused his rights of recourse – all of which
were rebuffed – to get a favorable judgment. He was found to have violated his duty as a member of
the bar to pursue only those acts or proceedings that appear to be just, and only those lines of
defense he believed to be honestly debatable under the law.

Respondent cannot hide behind the pretense of advocating his client's cause to escape liability for
his actions that delayed and frustrated the administration of justice.

He even attempted to tum the tables on complainant by pointing out that the "legal blunders" of the
latter's counsel contributed to the delay in the execution of the judgment. Whether or not the actions
or omissions of complainant's counsel brought dire consequences to its client's cause is not a factor
in the instant case. Even assuming for argument's sake that complainant's counsel committed
procedural errors that prolonged some of the case incidents, these errors did not prejudice the
delivery of justice, as they were later cured. More important, the so-called "blunders" were
independent of respondent's actions, which were the direct cause of the delay.

Respondent argues that he could not have possibly delayed the execution of the judgment, as no
Motion for Execution of Judgment had been filed when the instant administrative case was instituted.
This argument can no longer be considered viable, as he continued to employ dilatory tactics even
after the Writ of Execution had already been issued, and complainant later filed Supplemental
Complaints against him.

What is patent from the acts of respondent - as herein narrated and evident from the records - is that
he has made a mockery of judicial processes, disobeyed judicial orders, and ultimately caused
unjust delays in the administration of justice. These acts are in direct contravention of Rules 10.3
and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provide:

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of judgment or misuse
court processes.

Further, respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath68 by disobeying the legal orders of a duly
constituted authority, and disregarding his sworn duty to "delay no man for money or malice."

While the IBP similarly found respondent guilty of professional misconduct, we find that its
recommended penalty of reprimand is not commensurate with respondent’s transgression.

Under the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline’s Guidelines for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (IBP
Guidelines), reprimand is generally appropriate as a penalty when a lawyer’s negligence causes
injury or potential injury to a client or a party.69 In this case, respondent’s injurious court orders. He
knowingly abused the legal process and violated orders of the HLURB Board of Regional Office with
the intent of delaying the execution of s judgment that had long been final and executory. That he
continued to do so even if a Complaint was already filed against him proved that his acts were
deliberate.

Further, ethical violations analogous to respondent’s infractions have not been treated as lightly by
the Court.

In Foronda v. Guerrrero, the respondent’s therein was suspended for two years from the practice of
law for filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter in violation
of Canon 1270 and Rule 12.0471 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In Saladaga v. Astorga,72 the repondent was found guilty of (1) breach of the Lawyer’s Oath; (2)
unlawful. Dishonest, and deceitful conduct; and (3) disrespect for the Court and causing the undue
delay of cases. For these offenses, a penalty of suspension from the practice of law for two years, as
recommended by the IBP, was imposed.

The respondents in Millare73 and Garcia,74 meanwhile, were suspended for one year from the practice
of law.
In Saa v. IBP,75 the petitioner was found to have violated Canon 12,76 Rule 12.04.77 and Rule 1.0378 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility for delaying the resolution of a case. He was also
suspended from practice of law for one year.

Thus, We have meted out the penalty of one to two years' suspension in cases involving multiple
violations of professional conduct that have caused unjust delays in the administration of justice. The
IBP Guidelines similarly provide that "suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that he is
violating a court order or rule, and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or
interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding."79

Respondent, therefore, should not receive a mere reprimand; he should be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of one (1) year.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Atty. Al C. Argosino is found GUILTY of violating Rules
10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath, for which he
is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year effective upon the finality of this Resolution.
He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, the Public Information Office, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts. Likewise, a Notice of Suspension shall be appropriately posted on the Supreme Court
website as a notice to the general public.

Upon his receipt of this Decision, respondent shall forthwith be suspended from the practice of law
and shall formally manifest to this Court that his suspension has started. He shall furnish all courts
and quasi-judicial bodies where he has entered his appearance a copy of this Decision.

SO ORDERED.