CANON 13

1.
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. V. SANCHEZ
GR No. 75209 – September 30, 1987
KIMBERLY INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION FOR SOLIDARITY V. NLRC
GR No. 78791 – September 30, 1987
Per Curiam
SUBJECT:
Canon 13 – Influencing or Giving appearance of Influencing Court

FACTS:
The Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Union for
Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia had been conducting pickets
which intensified during the period of July 8-10, 1987 outside Padre Faura
gate of the SC building. Since June 17, 1981
On July 10, the Court
en banc
issued a resolution giving the said unions the
opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring the union leaders and their
counsels and other individuals to appear before the Court on July 14 and
then and there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of
court. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, was
further required to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt
with.
Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned,
apologized to the Court with an assurance that such acts will not be
repeated. He prayed for the Court’s leniency considering that the picket was
actually spearheaded by the leaders of the PAMANTIK, an unregistered
loosed alliance of about 75 unions in the southern Tagalog area and not by
either the UFE or KILU.

ISSUE:
WON the respondents should be held in contempt and Atty. Espinas
be administratively dealt with.

HELD:
Grievances, if any, should be ventilated to the proper channels, i.e., through
appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect
due to the Courts as impartial administrator of justice entitled 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.
“It is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and
juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every
extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced
in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by
bias, prejudice or sympathies.” (In re Stolen).
The acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the dignity of
the Court, but equally a violation of the constitutional right of the adverse
party and the citizenry at large to have their causes tried fairly.
The right of free speech and of assembly of the individuals herein are not
violated because any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice
through the exercise of either rights amounts to an abuse thereof and is no
loner within the ambit of constitutional protection. However, being non-
lawyers, the duty and responsibility of advising them rest primarily and
heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel of record, Atty. Espinas. It is the
duty of all members of the legal profession as officers of the court to properly
apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice.
The contempt charges were dismissed.

2.
[IN RE: RAMON TORRES - 55 Phil. 799 March 11, 1931.]

FACTS:
Torres,being the editor of El Debate, saw fit to print on the front page an article
which purported to name the author of the decision and even pointed out the
probable vote on the case among the members of the court. He was then cited
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court and his attorney
has made a return. The return made by Torres concludes with this statement: "If
it is a fact, therefore, that the decision in favor of the accused in the above-
entitled case had already been discussed and voted by this Honorable Tribunal,
the information given by the ’El Debate’ can in no way obstruct, embarrass, or
influence the administration of justice because it deals with a consummated fact.
It is nothing more than a simple scoop of the paper."

ISSUE:
WON Torres should be liable for contempt

RULING:
Yes. at the time of the publication in El Debate, the case in question had not
been discussed and voted, although even if it had been and even if the
newspaper story had been correct, would not be important. The proceedings of
this court must remain confidential until decisions or orders have been properly
promulgated. The reason for this is so obvious that it hardly needs explanation.
In a civil case, for example, prior knowledge of the result would permit parties to
benefit themselves financially or to compromise cases to the detriment of parties
not so well informed. In criminal cases, for example, advance advice regarding
the outcome would permit the accused to flee the jurisdiction of the court. The
court must, therefore, 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 object
before us is correction and not retaliation. At the oral hearing, the representative
of El Debate has expressed regret at the ill-advised publication of the news item,
and has indicated that rectification will later be made. Torres was required to
pay the sum of P30.

3.

May 16, 1922

In re FELICIANO GOMEZ

43 Phil. 376

FACTS:

Gomez and Cailles were rival candidates at the election for the
position of provincial governor, in which Gomez won. Cailles
contested the election successfully, first in the Court of First
Instance, and later in the Supreme Court. In a public meeting,
Gomez is charged with having said, in effect, that the Supreme
Court had decided the election protest in favor of Cailles, because
Governor-General Wood, out of friendship for Cailles, had invited
the members of the court to Malacañang previous to formulating the
decision, and there, following a secret conference, had offered them
a banquet. These remarks of Gomez were published in  a newspaper
of the city of Manila and are substantiated by four affidavits.

ISSUE:

WON GOMEZ SHALL BE HELD GUILTY OF CONTEMPT

RULING:

NO. THE matter should not be dignified by further proceedings. We

doubt very much if any one would think for a moment that
members of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands would sell
their birthright of judicial integrity for a social courtesy and the
favor of the Chief Executive. In reality, the Laguna election case
was taken up point by point and decided by principles, so that when
finished there was not a member of the court who knew what the
outcome would be until the vote was tabulated in the decision. We
feel also, that litigants and lawyers should not be held to too strict
an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of
chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to
condone even contemptuous language. When Attorney Feliciano
Gomez comes to reflect on his conduct, and on his obligations as an
officer of the court "to maintain towards it a respectful attitude, not
for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for
the maintenance of its supreme importance" (Code of Ethics, No. 1),
he will realize the impropriety of his action. The charges of Mr.
Gomez, it should be recalled, did not relate to a pending cause. The
rule in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that courts, when a
case is finished, are subject to the same criticism as other people.
Judges may not vindicate a private wrong by a public method.
Although the honor and integrity of the court may be assailed,
judges, like other persons, are relegated to the courts for redress.
As some one has well said, where the liberty of the press and
freedom of public comment ends, there tyrrany begin