THE USE OF ABUSIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT A GROUND FOR

DISQUALIFICATION FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE BAR

I. The Petition; ground

In the case of Andres v. Cabrera:

The petition to disqualify respondent from admission to the Bar was filed by
Atty. Andres, Legal Officer II in the Office of the Ministry of Labor on the
ground of lack of good moral character as shown by his propensity in using
vile, uncouth, and in civil language to the extent of being reprehensively
malicious and criminally libelous and likewise, for his proclivity in filing
baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal cases.

The former petitioning for the disqualification of the Cabrera from

membership in the bar quite unsuccessfully but enough to implant some
lasting lessons that there is no place for abusive, vituperative, uncouth and
vile languages in the Legal profession, and the Court finding the Respondent
guilty of contempt.

The power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all courts and
essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the
enforcement of their lawful orders and decisions. A lawyer who uses
intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language betrays disrespect to
the court, disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the court of its
disciplinary power. Such power, however, should be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on the corrective and not
on the retaliatory idea of punishment

II. Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court

 Power of the Court.
The power to punish contempt is inherent in all courts, and is essential to
their right of self-preservation. (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58
Phil. 271) This power applies in administrative proceedings as well as in
suits at law. (In re Lozano and Quevedo, 54 Phil. 801) The reason for this
is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their institution.

Civil Contempt- is the failure to do something ordered by a court to be

done for the benefit of a party. (Phil. Ry Co. vs. Judge of First Instance of
Iloilo, SC-G.R. No. 44983)

Criminal Contempt- is any conduct directed against the authority or

dignity of the court. (Slade Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 271)

Classification of Contempt
1. Direct contempt- is committed in the presence of, or so near, the judge
as to obstruct him in the administration of justice;
2. Constructive contempt- is committed out of the presence of the court,
as in refusing to obey its order or lawful process.

RULE 71
CONTEMPT
Section 1. Direct contempt punished summarily.-A person guilty of misbehavior in
the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before
the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward
others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit
or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in
contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos
or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial
Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank, or by a fine not exceeding two
hundred pesos or imprisonment net exceeding (1) day, or both, if it be a lower
court. (1a)
Sec. 2. Remedy therefrom. -The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court
may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or
prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution
of such petition, provided such person flea a bond fixed by the court which
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the
judgment should the petition be decided against him. (2a)
Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. -After a 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:
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or
in his official transactions;

(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a

court, including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from
any real property by the judgment or process of any court of competent
jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any
manner disturbs the possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with judicial proceedings;

(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or

degrade the administration of justice;

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without

authority;

(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;

(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an

officer by virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.

III. Additional Notes of Contempt

1) The violation of a right declared in a judgment does not constitute

contempt of court in the absence of any express command or
prohibition. Thus the mere failure of the petitioner to vacate the lot in
question could not be a basis of a contempt proceeding against said
petitioner in the absence of an express court order to that effect (Olego
vs. Rebueno, 66 SCRA 446).
2) The action of a party of causing repairs to the property involved in the
litigation pending appeal does not constitute contempt of court
(Lodovica vs. Court of Appeals, 65 SCRA 154).
3) A trial judge may be held in contempt of court for disregarding a writ
of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals (Reliance
Procoma, Inc. vs. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corporation, 57 SCRA 370).
4) A conviction for contempt is unjustified when the person convicted of
contempt acted in good faith (Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163).
5) The failure to obey a subpoena constitutes an indirect contempt. A
trial judge, therefore who immediately orders the arrest of the person
disobeying the court’s subpoena without giving him his day in court
commits a grave error (Gardones vs. Delgado, 58 SCRA 58).
6) A person may not be held in contempt of court for failure to obey a
court order where the terms of the same are ambiguous.
7) A false allegation made by counsel in his pleading constitutes direct
contempt (Occena vs. Marquez, 60 SCRA 38).
8) Contempt of Court may be either direct or constructive. It is direct
when committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
obstruct or interrupt proceedings before same and constructive or
indirect contempt is one committed out or not in the presence of court
and justice. It is tantamount to a misbehaviour in the presence of or so
near a court as to interrupt the admission of Justice (Delima vs.
Gallardo, 77 SCRA 286).
9) A contempt charge in the Supreme Court raising issues involving
questions of fact may be referred to the lower court for rehearing and
recommendation (Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, 6 SCRA
12).
10) Threats and disrespectful language in a pleading filed in court
constitutes direct contempt (Paragas vs. Cruz, 14 SCRA 809).
11) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order,
judgment or command of a court or manifest disobedience thereof
constitutes contempt of court (Francisco vs. Ramos, 69 SCRA 379).
12) The power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all
courts and essential to the preservation of order in judicial
proceedings and to the enforcement of their orders and decisions
(Montalban vs. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 273).
13) Only in cases of clear and contumacious refusal to obey, should
said power be exercised (Oliveros vs. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163).
14) Defiance to a restraining order of the Supreme Court constitutes
contempt (Kibad vs. Commission of Elections, 25 SCRA 711).
15) The refusal to honor an injunctive order of the Supreme Court
constitutes contempt (Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 26 SCRA 393).
16) The requirement that a person charged with contempt be given
an opportunity to be heard and be informed of the charges against him
are adequately fulfilled by the court either by reading the complaint to
respondent or furnishing him with a copy of the contempt charges
(Aguador vs. Enerio, 37 SCRA 140).