You are on page 1of 13


LANTIN [1968]
Facts: LEDESMA vs. CLIMACO [1974]
♦ A motion for reconsideration was filed in relation to the observation1 made by the
court in its decision dated May 22, 1968. The court assessed treble costs against the Ponente : Fernando, J
petitioners to be paid by their counsels. Attys. Baizas and Bolinao seek Facts:
reconsideration of the decision in so far as it reflects adversely upon their Prior to his appointment as election registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occ. on Oct 30, 1964,
professional conduct and condemns them to pay the treble costs. petitioner was counsel de parte as an accused in a pending case in the sala of the
♦ November 5, 1962 - Court of Appeals rendered judgment sustaining Damaso Perez' respondent.
position with respect to the extent of the levy, the subsequent proceedings Citing the demands of his appointive post and the conflict that may arise between the
interposed alternatingly by the petitioner spouses were obviously quixotic maneuvers discharge of his duties as election registrar and officer of the court, petitioner moved to
expected to be overthrown by the courts but calculated to delay an execution long withdraw as counsel.
overdue. Respondent not only denied the motion, but appointed petitioner as counsel de oficio for
♦ The petitioners and their counsel chose to attack the execution in a piecemeal the two other accused.
fashion causing the postponement of the projected execution sale six times. Perez Petitioner now comes before the SC to have the order of the respondent judge reversed
spouses as represented by their counsel sought the issuance of preliminary on certiorari.
injunctions to restrain the execution of the final judgment in civil case 39407 from
courts which did not have jurisdiction and which would, as expected, initially or Issue:
ultimately deny their prayer. WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. NO
The principal reason behind respondent’s denial of the motion to withdraw of
petitioner is because of its effect to delay the case further.
Issue: WON Attys. Baizas and Bolinao used devices to delay the execution of the The criminal proceeding had already been postponed several times, and to grant the
judgment? YES petitioner’s motion would have been tantamount to a denial the accused’s rights.
The fact that the respondent already appointed the petitioner as counsel de oficio other
Ratio: than the de parte, renders the latter’s excuse of the demand of his job as registrar inutile.
♦ Mrs. Perez and her counsel, knew or ought to have known beforehand that the Court There is no reason for him to compromise the accused, defense for want of time with the
of First Instance of Rizal did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ which Mrs. Perez demands on the time of counsel de oficio is less than that of de parte.
herself sought, and, anticipating the recall of the writ improvidently issued, on It is thus, clear that petitioner is merely reluctant to represent the accused,
September 3, 1963, a month before the said writ was actually lifted, filed in the basic membership in the Bar requires the responsibility to live up to its exacting
civil case 39407 an urgent motion to lift the writ of execution issued on August 15, standard, which includes assisting the state when called upon to administer
1961, alleging as justification the conjugal nature of the levied shares of stock and justice, the law is not a trade or a craft, but a profession.
the personal nature of Damaso Perez' judgment debt, the very same reasons As such, the facts that petitioner will not be compensated for his trouble should not hinder
advanced in civil case 7532 which was then still pending in the Court of First him from defending the accused to the best of his ability.
Instance of Rizal The right of the accused to counsel is a constitutionally protected right, such that any
♦ The circumstances relative to the motion for reconsideration clearly negates the frustration thereof by petitioner amounts to a serious affront to the profession.
avowal of the movants that "in none of the various incidents in the case at bar has
any particular counsel of petitioners acted with deliberate aforethought to delay the Decision: Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is admonished.
enforcement of the judgment in Civil Case No. 39407." The Perez spouses, coached
by their counsels, had sallied forth on a strategem of "remedies" projected to foil the WALTER T. YOUNG, complainant, vs. CEASAR BATUEGAS, MIGUELITO NAZARENO
lawful execution of a simple money judgment. LLANTINO & FRANKLIN SUSA, respondents [2003]
♦ Attys. Baizas and Bolinao contends that if there was delay it was because they  Young filed a complaint for disbarment against respondents for committing deliberate
happened to be more assertive, a quality of lawyers which is not to be condemned. falsehood in court & violating the lawyer’s oath.
The court replied that a counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and  Young is the private prosecutor in the murder case, P vs. Arana. Batuegas & Llantino
honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do were counsels for accused.
not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his 1. Dec. 13, 2000: counsels for accused filed a Manifestation w/Motion for Bail
client's position. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his clients if he he finds that his alleging that their client voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority.
client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to 2. NBI records show that accused only surrendered on Dec. 14, 2000.
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist 3. Susa, branch clerk of court, calendared the motion on Dec. 15, 2000 despite
the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. irregularities & defects: lack of notice of hearing to private complainant,
violation of the 3-day notice rule & failure to attach Certificate of Detention.
Decision: Attys. Crispin D. Baizas and A.N. Bolinao, Jr. shall pay jointly and severally the  Defense of counsels for accused:
treble costs assessed against the petitioners. 1. They filed the Manifestation w/Motion for Bail on Dec. 13, 2000 upon learning
that a warrant of arrest was issued against their client. They fetched accused in
Cavite however, due to heavy traffic, they arrived at the NBI at 2 a.m. the
We feel compelled to observe that during the protracted litigation below, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions following day, thus the Certificate of Detention indicated that accused
and petitions, at some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a surrendered on Dec. 14. They did not commit unethical conduct/falsehood since
simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only to be their client voluntarily surrendered & was detained.
abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek
justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice
2. Complainant as private prosecutor was not entitled to any notice of hearing but  In the aforesaid motion, he stated that he could not attend the pre-trial conference
they furnished the State & City prosecutors with copies of the motion w/notice because he had to attend the hearing of a Habeas Corpus Case before the Juvenile
of hearing. and Domestic Relations Court that same day and hour.
3. ROC Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) allows hearing of a motion on shorter notice.  But the Clerk of Court of the JDR Court certified that a decision had been rendered
 Susa’s defense: He was no longer in court when counsels filed the Dec. 13 Motion. on the aforementioned special proceedings case and that there was no hearing.
Another clerk received such. The presiding judge agreed to receive the Motion set for  Thus, Afurong filed a verified letter-complaint for disbarment against Aquino, for
hearing on Dec. 15, 2000 subject to the presentation of the Certificate of Detention filing frivolous harassment cases to delay the execution of a final decision,
before hearing. Since this was allowed by the presiding judge, Susa was only committing falsehood in an Urgent Motion for Postponement, and misrepresenting
faithfully performing his ministerial duty. himself as an attorney for the Citizens Legal Assistance Office
 IBP recommendation: Batuegas & Llantino be suspended for 6 mos for commission of  Atty. Aquino denied the charges against him and contended that such acts had been
deliberate falsehood while complaint against Susa was dismissed for lack of merit. done without malice.
 In a Reply, complainant asserted that Atty. Aquino was declared guilty of contempt
Issues & Ratio: of court and correspondingly fined by this Court for making false allegations in his
1. WON Batuegas & Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood. – YES. Urgent Motion for Postponement
 A lawyer is a disciple of truth. He swore upon his admission to the Bar that he will do  The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline submitted a Report finding that Aquino failed
no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court. It’s his duty to inform the to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided under the existing Canons
court upon the law & the facts of the case & to aid it in doing justice & arriving at the of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in force at the time of the
correct conclusion. In defending his client’s cause, a lawyer’s conduct must never be commission of the acts in question. They recommended that he be penalized with 6
at the expense of truth. months suspension
 Court may disbar/suspend a lawyer for misconduct, whether professional/private,  Board of Gov. of the IBP resolved to adopt and approve the report and
showing his want in moral character, honesty, probity & good demeanor proving him recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
 Counsels, anticipating that their motion for bail will be denied by the court if it found Issue: WON Aquino failed to perform his duties expected of an attorney as provided
out that it had no jurisdiction over accused, they concealed the truth by alleging that under the existing Canons of Professional Ethics and Sec. 20 of Rule 138 of the ROC in
their client voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. This act was misleading force at the time of the commission of the acts in question
& contemptuous, thereby contributing to injustice & is a violation of their oath.  The Revised Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of an attorney to counsel or
 Even if they were able to present their client during the hearing, the fact remains maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
that they falsely indicated that he surrendered on Dec. 13, 2000. As per Comia v. defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
Antona, it is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered on the same  Respondent Atty. Aquino should not have filed a petition for certiorari considering
date tentatively scheduled for the hearing of the application for bail. Bail should have that there was no apparent purpose for it than to delay the execution of a valid
not been allowed considering that at that point, accused was still devoid of judgment.
personality to ask for such relief.  Aquino committed falsehood when he stated in his Urgent Motion for Postponement
 Reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor/fiscal or at that he had to attend the hearing of a special proceedings case the same day as the
least his recommendation must be asked. pre-trial of the Civil Case. Such act violates the Canons of Professional Ethics which
 Motion may be heard on short notice. However, counsels failed to show any good obliges an attorney to avoid the concealment of the truth from the court. A lawyer is
cause to justify the non-observance of the 3-day notice rule. Rules of procedure mandated not to mislead the court in any manner.
must be observed & not misused to defeat the ends of justice.  Lower court correctly declared respondent in contempt of court for conduct tending,
directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice,
2. WON Susa is liable. – NO. in violation of Section 3 (d), Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court.
His acts were authorized by the presiding judge. But he is obliged to inform the judge if  Atty. Aquino purposely allowed the court to believe that he was still employed with
he should find any act/conduct on the part of lawyers w/c are contrary to the established the Citizens Legal Assistance Office when in fact he had been purged from said
rules of procedure. office.
 The Court hereby finds respondent Atty. Angel G. Aquino guilty of malpractice and
Holding: Batuegas & Llantino guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. They’re SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for six (6) months commencing upon
suspended from the practice of law for 6 mos. W/warning that repetition of same/similar receipt of notice hereof.
act will be dealt w/more severely.
 Administrative Matter in the SC. Malpractice
 Paraluman B. Afurong filed a complaint for ejectment against Victorino Flores for
nonpayment of rentals and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioner
Paraluman Afurong and the court issued a writ of execution.
 Facing eviction, Flores sought help from Citizens Legal Assistance Office and they
assigned Atty. Angel G Aquino to his case.
 He filed two petitions. When the court set a pre-trial, he filed an Urgent Motion for
Postponement and signed his name as counsel for Flores and indicated the address
of Citizens Legal Assistance Office as his office address notwithstanding the fact that
he was separated from Citizens Legal Assistance Office at that time.
his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final
IN RE SOTTO [1949] decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the
administration of justice.
Facts: ♦ As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any
♦ Atty. Vicente Sotto issued a written statement 2in connection with the decision of this
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
Court in In re Angel Parazo the statement was published in the Manila Times and promote distrust in the administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the
other daily newspapers of the locality. The court required Atty. Sotto to show cause court is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to
why he should not be charged with contempt of court. the courts, he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as
♦ Atty. Sotto does not deny having published the statement but he contends that under being guilty of flagrant misconduct.
section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, which confers upon this Supreme Court
the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, "this Decision: Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. Fine of 1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in
Court has no power to impose correctional penalties upon the citizens, and that the case of insolvency. He is also required to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
Supreme Court can only impose fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has
to be promulgated by Congress with the approval of the Chief Executive." And he J. Perfecto concurring
also alleges in his answer that "in the exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed
by the Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the press with the utmost
good faith and with no intention of offending any of the majority of the honorable ♦ Atty. Sotto has not presented any evidence or offered any to support his slanderous
members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously decided the Parazo imputations, and no single word can be found in his answer showing that he ever
case; but he has not attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity of any believed that the imputations are based on fact. He does not to deny his intimidating
one.' The other arguments set forth by the respondent in his defenses observe no announcement to introduce in the coming sessions of Congress, among the first
consideration. measures, one for the change of the members of the Supreme Court and for the
latter's complete reorganization. He has not explained or justified why he has to
Issue: WON Atty. Sotto can be punished for contempt of court? Yes intimidate the members of the Supreme Court with change and reorganization.
♦ Sotto claims that his statement was made with utmost good faith with no intention of
Ratio: offending any of the majority of the honorable members of the High Tribunal. This
♦ Rules 64 of the rules promulgated by this court does not punish as for contempt of argument lacks sincerity in view of his commens that the majority of the members of
court an act which was not punishable as such under the law and the inherent the Supreme Court have committed many blunders and injustices deliberately.
powers of the court to punish for contempt
♦ That the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of superior statue, is a
Sotto’s statement goes much further than mere criticism of our decision and the
doctrine or principle uniformly accepted and applied by the courts of last resort in the
majority members of this Court. The statement is an attempt to interfere with the
United States, which is applicable in this jurisdiction since our Constitution and courts
administration of justice, to miscarry and defeat justice, by trammelling the freedom
of justice are patterned after those of that country.
of action of the members of the Supreme Court, by bullying them with the menace of
♦ Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or
change, reorganization, and removal, upon the false accusation that they have been
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may committing "blunders and injustices deliberately," and the menacing action
be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the constitutes a flagrant violation of the Constitution. Such a thing is not covered by the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously freedom of the press or by the freedom to criticize judges and court proceedings, as
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its no one in his senses has ever conceived that such freedom include any form of
decision. expressed gangterism, whether oral or written.
♦ Atty. Sotto does not merely criticize or comment on the decision of the Parazo case,
which was then and still is pending reconsideration by this Court upon petition of KOMATSU INDUSTRIES vs. CA [1998]
Angel Parazo. He not only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the Facts: from lower court
presentation of a bill in the next Congress, of which he is one of the members, NDIC granted a loan to Komatsu for P8m, with a P2m guarantee from PNB. Komatsu then
reorganizing the Supreme Court and reducing the members, reorganizing the mortgaged his land and all its improvement for this.
Supreme Court and reducing the members of Justices from eleven to seven, so as to PNB also granted letter of credit deferments worth $1,564,826.00 in favor of Toyota for
change the members of this Court which decided the Parazo case, who according to Komatsu.
Now there came a time when Komatsu paid all his debts to NDIC the P8m and P2m, and
As author of the Press Freedom Law (Republic Act No. 53.) interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Angel the latter thus returned the land title to Komatsu with a deed of release and cancellation
Parazo, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 30 days imprisonment, for his refusal to divulge the source of a of mortgage.
news published in his paper, I regret to say that our High Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that PNB suddenly discovered that there was still the granted letter of credits unpaid, so they
it is once more putting in evidence the incompetency of narrow mindedness o the majority of its members, In the wake of
asked the title to be returned.
so many mindedness of the majority deliberately committed during these last years, I believe that the only remedy to put
an end to so much evil, is to change the members of the Supreme Court. To his effect, I announce that one of the first It was returned, then a ”petition for correction of entry or adverse claim” was filed and
measures, which as its objects the complete reorganization of the Supreme Court. As it is now constituted, a constant PNB petitioned foreclosure and of sale through the sheriff.
peril to liberty and democracy. It need be said loudly, very loudly, so that even the deaf may hear: the Supreme Court The trial court adjudged that the deed of release, released Komatsu from its obligation to
very of today is a far cry from the impregnable bulwark of Justice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano, PNB.
Victorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned jurists who were the honor and glory of the Philippine Judiciary.
The CA however decided that the deed of release did not cover the letter of credit
mortgaged over the same property. PNB, which is a corporation separate and distinct
from NDIC, was not one of the signatories over the deed and that mortgages are No, the allegations were that Padilla deliberately sought out the assigned ponente and
indivisible, even if you paid the partial, the debt is still ongoing. In short since PNB is not asked the PNB favored decision for A BIRTHDAY AND PARTING GIFT, ponente declined and
party to the contract of releasing the obligation of Komatsu, then it is not binding upon it was then raffled to somebody who was a good friend of Padilla.
them. The facts prove that there was never an assigned ponente as it was directly raffled to the
Thus, the questioned sale of the sheriff is therefore valid. 2nd division. And under the internal rules of this court, when a case is unloaded, there is
( important are petitioner’s assignment of errors and misconduct towards the no need for holding a 2nd raffle.
courts.) The allegations are not proven, but the court said that this must be discussed in a
Of course, the petitioner in this case, Komatsu then files certiorari against the CA. SC different proceeding if the parties the CA (2nd division) and the Padilla law office(counsel
denied this for failure to show the CA committed any reversible error. This was done after for Padilla) on one side and on the other side the petitioner, wish to pursue this.
considerable time had been sent to dissect issues and non-issues and multitudes of
comments, reconsiderations and pleadings. Decision: (important*)
Petitioner then filed a 24 page MFR, required the respondents to comment and this was Increasing practice of defeated litigants conjuring scenarios which they blame for their
admitted which granted respondents a joint rejoinder. But this too was later denied. debacle instead of admitting the lack of merit of their cases displeases the court. These
Now petitioner insist that they should have been allowed to file memoranda. He filed a are unethical disregard of the canons for responsible advocacy with the warning
motion for leave to file an Incorporated Second Motion for Reconsideration. He says that that this insidious pattern of professional misconduct shall not hereafter be
irregularities and errors were committed by CA and SC, allusions to misconduct by allowed to pass with impunity.
respondent’s counsel, and imputations against retired Justice Teodoro Padilla. This is a lamentable technique contrived by losing litigants of resorting to ascriptions of
supposed irregularities in the courts as cause of defeat. The court however contents itself
Issues for the nonce of a stern admonition that petitioner refrain from conduct tending to
WON the CA committed any errors. create mistrust in our judicial system through innuendos on which no evidence is
No, the petitioner assailed the time short spent by CA on the case, SC said that it is so offered or indicated to be preferred. Responsible litigants need not be told that pleadings
because the evidence were merely documentary and the questions were answerable by need to have intellectual honesty and facts to serve justice and dignify the cause of the
applying well-settled doctrines. SC upheld the facts and findings and judgment of CA. pleader.
The Sc reviewed these contentions and supported the CA:
Contention on the deed of release was well supported by the civil code articles. 2nd MFR denied for lack of merit and EXPUNGED for unauthorized pleading. Final and
Contention on the double mortgage was also supported and allowed by the civil code as executory, no more pleadings and motions will be entertained.
long as the parties agree.
Contentions on the damages for not foreclosing only the proportionate part of the
mortgage, the civil code too is clear that mortgages are indivisible. SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, et al., petitioners vs. HON.
Contentions on the validity of the sale and foreclosure basing it only on the ”petition for GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, etc., et al., respondents, In Re: Contempt Proceedings
correction of entry or adverse claim” which is not allowed, the CA ruled that since the against Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran Sotto, Graciano Regala &
mortgage was still subsisting, and petitioner was not able to controvert that PNB filed a Associates, Erlito Uy, Juanito Caling & Morton Meads [1970]
verified petition for extrajudicial foreclosure under Act #3135, it is valid. SC says so too.
Contentions on the damages becomes irrelevant since the foreclosure and sale is valid and CONTEMPT PROCEDINGS #1:
therefore the damnum absque injuria rules that there is no need for it because there is no  (Incident #1) SC decided against Mac Arthur International Minerals Co., client of
injury. counsels involved in this case. Counsels Santiago, Uy, Regala & Sotto purportedly set
As to the contention that the question of WON the petitioner is entitled to redeem the its forth a memoranda personally signed by Sotto claiming that:
foreclosed property from PNB if the foreclosure is invalid. SC said that when it was raised 1. petitioners in the case made false, ridiculous & wild statements in a desperate
it wasn’t proper as it wasn’t on the pre-trial but only on the memorandum. Besides the attempt to prejudice the courts against their client (Mac Arthur). They called it
one-year redemption period is not suspended by an action for nullification, the company “scattershot desperation.”
even assigned a “deed of assignment right to redeem” to Atty. Norberto Quisimbing, and 2. proposition is corrupt on its face showing petitioners’ immoral & arrogant
still docketed in a case. It seems that they only want to look for issues. attitude.
3. petitioners opportunistically change their claims & stories from case to case &
WON the SC committed errors when they dismissed the case on a minute resolution. pleading to pleading in the same case.
NO, the SC clarified that contrary to the belief of the petitioner that the SC had to
determine the facts if the CA reversed the trial court, the SC has on its option only to  (Incident #2) Mac Arthur’s 3rd MFR signed by Santiago on his behalf & purportedly
determine the facts and since there is no conflict on the facts by the two courts then there for Uy, Regala & Associate, & Sotto claimed that the SC overlooked the applicable law
is no need to determine it again. due to the misrepresentation & obfuscation of petitioners’ counsel & that never has
As to the contention that the SC violates §14, Art. VIII of the Consti by granting minute any civilized democratic tribunal ruled that such gimmick can be used by vulturous
resolutions, the SC held that jurisprudence has long since settled that resolutions are not executives to cover up & excuse losses to the public.
decisions within the requirements of the Consti, they merely hold that the resolution  (Incident #3) Santiago allegedly w/Uy, Regala & Associates, filed a motion to inhibit
should not be entertained. The petition to review the decision of the CA is not a matter of asking CJ Concepcion & Justice Castro to inhibit themselves since the latter’s brother
right but of sound judicial discretion. In any case, the grant of minute resolution only is a VP of the favored party who is the chief beneficiary of the “false, erroneous &
means that the SC agrees and adopts the findings and conclusions of the CA, it is then illegal decision,” while Concepcion’s son was given a significant appointment in the
correct. Phil. Gov’t by the President shortly before the decision was rendered. They
enumerated certain incidents w/c according to them were proof of unjudicial
WON there is truth to the allegations against retired Judge Padilla. prejudice, w/unjudicial favoritism in favor of petitioners. Incidents include violation of
the law, deprivation of respondent’s rt to due process, misstatements & b. He made accusations of favoritism, justices are insensible to delicadeza,
misrepresentations in the decision, etc. (see p.7 for complete list). justices’ relationships affect their judgment and that loss of confidence for the
 Santiago’s defense (including Uy, Regala & Associates): statements in incident #1 tribunal has already begun.
were quoted out of context. He claims that he needed to make those statements lest c. Deleted paragraph contained disrespectful language. Thus, even if it was
his client be deprived of due process. He agreed to change CJ to Supreme Court & he included only because of mere inadvertence & was subsequently deleted, fact
voluntarily deleted par. 6 (see p.8) in incident #3. WRT incident #2 & 3, he claims remains that it has been made.
that he alone should be responsible for they were of his exclusive making. d. Accusations have no basis in fact & in law. It sweepingly casts aspersion on the
 Santiago filed an amended motion to inhibit by taking out dissertation on judicial whole court. Santiago’s logic that anyone who receives favors/benefits
ethics & comments attacking Court’s decision. directly/indirectly from any of the petitioners, the president included, should
 Sotto’s defense: early on in the case, he insisted in w/drawing his appearance. inhibit himself or herself, is an absurdity. Does this mean that justices who are
Statements in incident #1 were taken out of context & were necessary to defend his all appointed by the president & thus can be considered to have received a
client. Taken out of context, they were violative of Rule 138, Sec. 20(f). He did not favor from the president, should inhibit themselves everytime a case involving
agree w/the motion to inhibit & such was against his upbringing & judicial the Administration crops up? This would paralyze the machinery of the Court &
conscience. He further averred that SC had no original jurisdiction over the civil wreak havoc on the tripartite system.
contempt charge since such is originally cognizable w/the CFI. He also stressed that  He wants to create an atmosphere of distrust & disbelief.
charge was not signed by an offended party/witness, the Sol Gen & his assistants did  Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer: Respect due to the courts of justice & judicial
not qualify as offended parties/witnesses. officers is necessary not merely for the sake of the incumbent officials but for the
 Regala’s defense: use of/reference to his law firm in this case was neither authorized maintenance of its supreme importance. It’s incumbent upon lawyers to support the
nor consented to by him or any of his associates. He claimed that Meads, Mac courts against unjust criticism & clamor.
Arthur’s representative, offered to retain his services w/c he accepted. However,  As an officer of the court, a lawyer is like the court itself, an instrument or agency to
when this case arose, he informed Meads that this was outside his professional advance the ends of justice. He can’t promote distrust in the administration of
competence thus he referred him to another lawyer who also turned down the offer. justice. He should seek to preserve faith in the courts. He should help build & not
They then agreed to terminate the retainer agreement. He did not participate in any destroy the high regard & esteem towards the court, essential to the proper
preparation/authorship of any pleading in this case. administration of justice.
 Uy: denied participation. He claimed that he was on 6mos leave during this time as  A client’s cause doesn’t permit an atty. To cross the line between liberty & license.
one of Mac Arthur’s lawyers but he gave his permission to have his name included as His first duty is to the administration of justice & to observe law & ethics. Considering
counsel. that a judge from the nature of his position lacks the power to defend himself, it is
the lawyer who can better/more appropriately support the judiciary.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS #2  The court is not infallible. But discipline & self-restraint on the part of the bar even
under adverse conditions are necessary for the orderly administration of justice. In
 Atty. Caling, entered a special appearance for Mac Arthur & filed a 4 MFR w/o
this case, Santiago’s language undermines & degrades the administration of justice.
express leave of court. Motion reiterated previous grounds & further claimed that the
decision was illegal because it was penned by CJ Concepcion when in fact he was out 2. WON Sotto should be held in contempt of court. – YES.
of the country at the time the Oral Argument was heard. He claims the New ROC  Incident #1: language is not protected. It’s the surfacing of a feeling of contempt
prohibits this. He further stressed that if Mac Arthur abandons its quest for justice in towards a litigant & it offends the court before w/c it is made.
the RP, it will elevate the case to the World Court and/or to the US gov’t.  A lawyer’s language should be dignified in keeping w/the dignity of the legal
 Caling’s defense: 4th MFR was already finalized when Santiago came to his office & profession. He is to abstain from all offensive personality & from any act prejudicial
to the honor/reputation of a party/witness.
requested him to sign it. He turned down the request twice but after being assured
 Courts can start proceedings w/the Sol Gen or his assistants as offended parties.
that there was nothing wrong w/the motion, he was persuaded to sign it in good
Inherent in the courts is the power to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct
faith. He claims that he was misled.
of its ministerial officers & of all other persons in any manner connected w/a case
 Santiago’s defense: claimed that Meads went to his office & asking if he knew before it.
another lawyer who could help him file a 4th MFR. He accompanied Meads to Caling.  Sotto misbehaved w/improper conduct tending to degrade the administration of
He never prepared the motion nor has he read it. justice.
 Meads version: He prepared the motion himself. He went to Santiago who then made
changes to the motion in pencil. However, he informed Santiago that he wanted a 3. WON Regala should be held in contempt. – NO.
new lawyer thus they went to Caling. Santiago left subsequently. Caling read the  Improper for Santiago to include Regala’s firm w/o latter’s knowledge & consent. He
motion & gave Meads the go signal. He claims that ROC quotation was accurate & did not participate nor did he even know that his name was included.
the “xxx” indicate that it was not a complete quotation as is common practice in
court pleadings. World Court is not a threat. His answer included a notice of appeal 4. WON Uy should be held in contempt. – NO.
to the World Court.  He was not involved in the preparation of any of the pleadings.

Issues & Ratio:
1. WON Santiago should be held in contempt. – YES.
5. WON the 2nd contempt proceedings should prosper. – YES.
 It was filed w/o express leave of court. No explanation was made on why this was
 Statements in incident #2 used language not expected of an officer of the courts.
 Incident #3:
 ROC quote was misleading since only part of the provision was quoted (see p. 20-
a. accuses in a reckless manner 2 justices of the SC of being interested in the
21). No explanation was given by Caling. Meads explained that partial quotation was
decision of the case.
common practice. However, Canon 22 of the Canons of Legal Ethics specifically derogatory remarks hereinbefore reproduced, against this Court as well as its
mentions that lawyers should not knowingly misquote as this would not be fair nor individual members, a behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional
candid. A lawyer would easily see the deliberate deception w/c intentionally omitted (check the case for what’s written)
the qualification attached to the provision.  He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the petition and some parts
 Threats to take the case to the World Court or US gov’t are unnecessary statements. were published in some newspapers.
This was an attempt to influence/bend the Court’s mind to decide in their favor. The  The SC decided by resolution to withhold action on his petition until he shall have
MFR was inconsistent w/the appeal to the World Court. actually surrendered his certificate. But no word came from him. So he was reminded
 Caling is liable for contempt since it was his duty to take care that his name should to turn over his certificate, w/c he had earlier vociferously offered to surrender, so
not be attached to pleadings contemptuous in character. that this Court could act on his petition. But he manifested “that he has no pending
 Meads, as the person who prepared the motion, is likewise liable for contempt. petition in connection w/ Calero vs. Yaptinchay Case.”
 Santiago is likewise liable for contempt. He convinced Caling to sign the document.  SC require Atty. Almacen to show cause "why no disciplinary action should be taken
He read it himself and was even making changes. Besides, as lawyer of record for against him." He denied the charges and asked for permission "to give reasons &
Mac Arthur, he has control of the proceedings. Whatever steps his client takes should cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against an open & public
be w/in his knowledge & responsibility. He should restrain/prevent his clients from hearing" & later also asked for leave to file a written explanation "in the event this
doing things w/c he himself ought not to do particularly w/reference to their conduct Court has no time to hear him in person" w/c the court granted.
towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses. If a client persists in such a  But his written answer, as undignified & cynical as it is unchastened, offers no
wrongdoing, the lawyer should terminate their relation. apology but instead unremittingly repeats his jeremiad of lamentations, this time
 To preserve its dignity, a court of justice should not yield to the assaults of embellishing it with abundant sarcasm and innuendo. (pls check case again for this)
WON Atty. Almacen’s grievances are with merit
6. WON the decision against Mac Arthur was proper. – YES.  NO. He chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for review. But truth to
 Mac Arthur did not adhere to the terms & conditions of the invitation to bid since its tell, most petitions rejected by the SC are utterly frivolous & ought never to have
bid was accompanied by a bid bond, specifically prohibited by the invitation. been lodged at all. Besides, were the SC to accept every case or write a full opinion
 Bid was submitted w/o the requisite bond. for every petition they reject, they’d be unable to carry out effectively the burden
placed upon them by the Constitution
*Decision would be the same even if Concepcion & Castro inhibited themselves.  The Court underscore the fact that cases taken to this Court on petitions for
certiorari from the CA have had the benefit of appellate review. Hence, the need for
Holding: compelling reasons to buttress such petitions if this Court is to be moved into
1. Contempt proceedings #1: Santiago & Sotto held in contempt of court w/fines of accepting them. For it is axiomatic that the supervisory jurisdiction vested upon this
P1,000.00 and P100.00 respectively. Regala & Associates and Uy not guilty. Court over the CA is not intended to give every losing party another hearing, as
2. Contempt proceedings #2: Santiago, Meads & Caling held in contempt of court. implied in sec. 4 of Rule 46 ROC.
Santiago & Meads fined P1,000.00 each while Caling’s fine is P200.00.  Recalling Atty. Almacen's petition for review, the Court held that the CA had fully and
3. Decision forwarded to Sec. Of Justice & Sol Gen for actions they may deem proper. 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
IN RE ALMACAN [1970] of judicial proceedings," it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a
 In the civil case Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero, in w/c Atty. Almacen number of decisions. There was, therefore, no need for this Court to exercise its
was counsel for the defendant, the TC rendered judgment against Almacen’s client. supervisory power.
 After Atty. Almacen received a copy of the decision, he moved for its reconsideration.  Regarding the MFR, Atty. Almacen knew, or ought to have known, that for MFR to
He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify the latter stay the running of the period of appeal, the movant must not only serve a copy of
of the time & place of hearing on said motion. the motion upon the adverse party (which he did), but also notify the adverse party
 Meanwhile, plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment. TC denied both motions. of the time and place of hearing (which admittedly he did not) as articulated in
 To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his 1st MFR, he filed a 2nd Manila Surety & Fidelity vs. Batu Construction & Co. If Atty. Almacen failed to move
MFR to w/c he attached the required registry return card. This 2nd MFR, however, the appellate court to review the lower court's judgment, he has only himself to
was ordered withdrawn by the TC upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who, blame.
earlier had already perfected the appeal. TC elevated the case to the CA.  It would thus appear that there is no justification for his scurrilous and scandalous
 CA, on the authority of this Court's decision in Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. outbursts.
Batu Construction & Co. dismissed the appeal for having failed to indicate notice of
time and place of hearing. WON Atty. Almacen’s actuations merit penalty
 Atty. Almacen moved to reconsider this resolution he filed pleading entitled "Latest  YES. Every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the actuations of
decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion for Reconsideration," citing RP public officers. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism concerns a
vs. Gregorio A. Venturanza as the applicable case but the CA again denied MFR, concluded litigation, because then the court's actuations are thrown open to public
stating that RP vs. Venturanza is no authority on the matter in issue. consumption.
 He then appealed to SC w/c was denied by a minute resolution. Likewise, his MFR  Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who vigorously assails their
and leave to file a 2nd MFR & for extension of time were denied. Entry of judgment actuations. As citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to
was then made. exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and
 Then, Atty. Almacen gave vent to his disappointment by filing his "Petition to indiscretions of courts and judges.
Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title" — a pleading that is interspersed from
beginning to end with the insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and
 To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts & judges is to seal any other Gov’t entity in a viable democracy, the Court is not above criticism, a
the lips of those in the best position to give advice & who might consider it their critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its high function
duty, to speak disparagingly. as the court of last resort. And more than this, valid and healthy criticism is by no
 But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall means synonymous to obloquy, and requires detachment and disinterestedness, real
not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a qualities approached only through constant striving to attain them. Any criticism of
gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects the Court must possess the quality of judiciousness and must be informed by
a lawyer to disciplinary action. A lawyer vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all perspective and infused by philosophy.
good fidelity... to the courts (Sec. 3, Rule 138) and the ROC constantly remind him  It is not accurate to say that, as Atty. Almacen would have appear, the members of
"to observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers." the Court are the "complainants, prosecutors and judges" all rolled up into one in
(Sec. 20(b), Rule 138) The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain this instance. Disciplinary proceedings like the present are sui generic. There is
towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein.
of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance."  The nature & extent of the sanctions that may be visited upon Atty. Almacen for his
 In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be transgressions may range from mere suspension to total removal or disbarment
an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, statements made by an (Sec. 27, Rule 138, ROC) and the discretion to assess under the circumstances the
attorney in private conversations or communications or in the course of a political imposable sanction is, of course, primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the
campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the Court which, being neither arbitrary and despotic nor motivated by personal
administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. animosity or prejudice, should ever be controlled by the imperative need that the
 An examination of relevant parallel precedents [State v. Calhoon, In Re Glenn, In Re purity and independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and
Humphrey, People ex rel Chicago Bar Asso. v. Metzen, In Re Troy, In Re Rockmore, respect due to the Court be zealously maintained.
In Re Mitchell, State ex rel Dabney v. Breckenridge, Bar Ass'n of San Francisco v.  The Court thus held that Atty. Almacen be suspended from the practice of law until
Philbrook, State Board of Examiners v. Hart, Cobb v. United States, In Re Graves, In further orders, the merit of this choice being best shown by the fact that it will then
Re Doss, State v. Grimes] imparts the lesson that post-litigation utterances or be left to Atty. Almacen to determine for himself how long or how short that
publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial actuations, suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension becomes effective he may
whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair prove to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law.
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 Holding: Suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to take
justice, constitute grave professional misconduct which may be visited with effect immediately.
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 & ethics of the legal fraternity. SANGALANG vs. IAC [1989]
 The cases Salcedo vs. Hernandez, In re Sotto, Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer:
In re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al., Medina vs. Rivera, In the
matter of the Intestate Estate of Rosario Olba, Contempt proceedings against
Antonio Franco, People vs. Carillo, People vs. Venturanza, et al., De Joya, et al. vs.
CFI of Rizal, Sison vs. Sandejas, Parangas vs. Cruz, and Cornejo vs. Tan all involved
contumacious statements made in pleadings filed pending litigation. However,
although the doctrinal rule is that 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, that rule cannot be availed
of by Atty. Almacen (who made the comments after this Court had written finis to his
appeal) because such rule has lost much of its vitality.
 Although for sometime, this was the prevailing view in this jurisdiction, the first stir
for a modification thereof, however, came when, in People vs. Alarcon, the then Chief
Justice Manuel V. Moran dissented with the majority holding of the majority, speaking
thru Justice Jose P. Laurel, which upheld the rule above-adverted to. Then a
complete disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in In re
Brillantes. Thus, Atty. Almacen could as much be liable for contempt therefor as if it
had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal.
 Besides, pendancy or non-pendancy is here immaterial. 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 duties & responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney.
Undoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do.
 The proffered surrender of his lawyer's certificate is, of course, purely potestative on
Atty. Almacen's part. But then, 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. Although, like
MANILA PEST CONTROL vs. WCC [1968] ♦ There is no reason why the decision would have been served on some other counsel
Facts: if there where no such misinformation, if there where no such attempt to mislead
♦ February 24, 1967 – WCC considered a complaint filed against it by Mario Abitria for ♦ It is one thing to exert to the utmost one's ability to protect the interest of one's
compensation. It was submitted for decision after he and a physician had testified. client. It is quite another thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to take advantage
The counsel of Manila Pest Control failed to appear at the hearing. of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create one, to delay if not to defeat the
♦ A motion for reconsideration was filed praying he be allowed to present evidence on recovery of what is justly due and demandable, especially so, when as in this case,
his behalf. This MFR was denied. the obligee is a necessitous and poverty-stricken man suffering from a dreaded
♦ Arbitria was employed by the MPC since February 4, 1956, working six (6) days a disease, that unfortunately afflicts so many of our countrymen and even more
week and receiving an average monthly wage of P180.00 as labourer. He was unfortunately requires an outlay far beyond the means of our poverty stricken
assigned in the Research Division which conducted research on rat traps and other masses.
matters regarding extermination of pests, animals and insects. In the place of his
employment he was made to inhale dangerous fumes as the atmosphere was Holding: With treble costs against petitioner to be paid by his counsel, Attorney Manuel A.
polluted with poisonous chemical dusts. The working condition of his place of work Corpuz
was also warm and humid in view of the products being manufactured by the
respondent. He was not extended any protective device and he was also made to lift PNB vs. UY TENG PIAO [1932]
heavy objects in the painting and soldering. Sometime in July, 1966 while the
claimant was soldering [he] began to experience symptoms of pulmonary Facts:
tuberculosis. Because of his spitting of blood or hemoptysis, he went to consult Dr. Sept. 9, 1924, the CFI Manila rendered a judgment in favor of the PNB and against Uy
Felix Tuazon of the Quezon Institute whose diagnosis was pulmonary tuberculosis. Teng Piao for the sum of P17,232.42 with interest at 7% per annum from June 1, 1924
♦ The doctor testified that the nature of work of the claimant involving strenuous plus 10% of the sum amount for atty’s fees and costs. The court ordered the dfendant to
physical exertion and other factors of work such as the lowering of his resistance in deposit said amount with the clerk of the court within 3 months from the date of the
view of the enormous inhalation of chemical fumes. judgment, and in case of his failure to do so that the mortgaged properties described in
♦ The decision of the WCC was sent to Attorney Manuel Camacho but care of transfer certificates of tile # 7264 and 8274 should be sold at public auction in accordance
petitioner's counsel, Attorney Manuel Corpuz. MPC contends that the one "officially with the law and the proceeds applied to the payment of the judgment.
furnished" with a copy of such decision was not its counsel, who was without any Uy faild to comply with the order of the court and the sheriff of the city of /manila sold the
connection with Attorney Camacho. It would conclude, therefore, that it had not two parcels of land at public auction to the Philippine National Bank on Oct. 14, 1924 for
received a copy of a decision which could not thereafter reach the stage of finality P300 and P1000 respectively.
calling for a writ of execution. Feb. 11,1925, the PNB secured from Uy a waiver of his right to redeem the property
♦ WCC explained via the affidavit of Mr. Guzman that when he went to the office of described in TCT 8274 and on the same date the bank sold the property to Mariano
Atty. Corpuz, on March 10, 1967 to deliver a copy of the decision ..., but Atty. Corpuz Santos for P8,600.
refused to receive the said decision alleging that he was no longer handling the case. Evidently the other parcel, TCT 7264 was subsequently resold by the bank for P2700
Atty. Corpuz, instead instructed Mr. Guzman to deliver the said decision to Atty. because the account of the defendant was credited with the sum of P11,300. In other
Camacho since it was already Atty, Camacho who was handling the case, and Atty. words, the bank credited the defendant with the full amount realized by it when it resold
Camacho, according to Atty. Corpuz, even had the records of the case. the 2 parcels of land.
♦ Atty. Corpuz is impugning the delivery of the decision to Atty. Camacho. It was then The bank brought the present action to revive the judgment for the balance of P11,574.38
alleged in the petition that on April 11, 1967, a motion for reconsideration of the with interest at 7% per annum from Aug. 1, 1930.
aforesaid order was filed with the averment that petitioner was not aware of any In his amended answer the defendant alleged as a special defense that he waived his
decision rendered in the case as no copy of the same had theretofore been furnished right to redeem the land described in TCT# 8274 in consideration of an understanding
to its counsel. between him and the bank , through a certain employee named Mr. Pecson, that the bank
♦ April 24, 1967 – motion for reconsideration was denied would not collect from him the balance of the judgment. It was on this ground that the
trial court absolved the defendant from the complaint.
♦ June 14, 1967 - a plea for execution was granted on behalf of Arbiria and
One of the attys for the plaintiff testified that the defendant renounced his right to
subsequently the City Sheriff of Manila levied on the petitioner’s properties.
redeem the parcel of land in Calle Ronquillo, because a friend of the defendant was
♦ The petitioner contends that the infringement of procedural due process, the
interested in buying it.
actuation of the Commission was either in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave The defendant has failed to prove any valid agreement on the part of the bank not to
abuse of discretion. collect from him the remainder of the judgment. The alleged agreement rests upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the defendant if Pecson was not in Iloilo at the time of the
Issue: WON Atty. Corpuz misused the processes of the Court to delay the delivery of execution of the defendant’s waiver of his right to redeem, the defendant answered that
justice? YES he did not know; asked when Pecson had spoken to him about the matter the defendant
replied that he did not remember.
♦ Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the copy of the decision of the WCC and he is now Issues
impugning the delivery of the decision to Atty. Camacho and denying the knowledge WON Uy Teng Piao had waived his right to redeem the property in question in
of it when in fact and in truth the delivery of the decision to Atty. Camacho was made consideration of an understanding between him and an employee of the bank that the
per his instruction. latter would not collect from the defendant the remainder of a prior jjudgment.
♦ An effort was made to serve petitioner with a copy of the decision; that such effort No, Even conceding that there was such an agreement, it was not shown that said
failed was attributable to the conduct of its own counsel. employee was authorized to make it, and that only the board of directors or the persons
empowered by it could bind the bank. If Pecson had may any such agreement as the
defendant claims, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have required the defendant interfere w/the admin of justice. Freedom of speech is not absolute & such should be
to waive his right to redeem both parcels of land, and that the defendant, a Chinese balanced w/the requirements of equally impt pub interests. Making contemptuous
businessman, would have insisted upon some evidence of the agreement in writing. statements is an abuse of this right.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the defendant waived his right to redeem the land 4. Courts should be immune from every extraneous influence as they resolve the issues
in question because a friend his wished to purchase it, and the bank agreed to credit the presented before them. It’s an act of preserving the unprejudiced tribunal.
defendant with the full amount of the sale. 5. People v. Godoy: citizens are allowed to comment on judicial proceedings, decisions
& the fitness of the justices, but he has no rt to attempt to degrade the court,
WON the counsel for the defendant could be a witness and at the same time an atty in a destroy public confidence in it & encourage people to disregard & set naught its
cause. orders, judgments & decrees. Such would be an abuse of the liberty of speech & of
Although the law does not forbid an atty to be a witness at the same time an atty in a the press.
cause, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, 6. De Vera’s statements are threats aimed to force the SC to decide in a particular
and that they should withdraw from the active mgt. Of the case. (Malcolm: legal ethics,p manner or risk earning the ire of the public. These show disrespect for the Court &
148) the judicial system tending to promote distrust & undermine public confidence in the
Canon 19, when a lawyer is a witness for his client, except as to merely formal judiciary by creating an impression that it can’t be trusted. Such is contrary to De
matters, such as the attestation or custody of an instrument and the like, he Vera’s duty to uphold the dignity & authority of the courts & to promote confidence in
should leave the trial of the case to other counsel. Except when essential to the the fair admin of justice & in the SC as the last bulwark of justice & democracy.
ends of justice, a lawyer should avoid testifying in court in behalf of his client.
Holding: De Vera is guilty of indirect contempt of court & fined P20,000.00 to be paid
Judgment w/in 10 days from receipt of decision.
The decision appealed from is reversed and the defendant is condemned to pay
the plaintiff the sum of P11,574.38 with interest thereon at the rate of 7% per NESTLE PHIL. vs. SANCHEZ [1987]
annum from august 1, 1930, and the costs for both instance.  From July 8-10, 1987, Union of Filipro Employees and Kimberly Independent Labor
Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia intensified the intermittent
In Re: Published Alleged Threats against Members of the Court in the Plunder pickets they had been conducting in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC
Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera [2002] building.
 Questioned here are alleged contemptuous statements uttered by Atty. Leonard de  Pickets continued even after their leaders had been received by Justices Pedro L.
Vera regarding the case involving the constitutionality of the Plunder Law. Yap & Marcelo B. Fernan as Chairmen of the Divisions where their cases are
1. PDI, Nov. 6, 2001: De Vera asked SC to dispel rumors that it would decide in pending.
favor of Estrada’s lawyers declaring the law unconstitutional for its supposed  It also continued even after Atty. Jose C. Espinas, counsel of the Union of Filipro
vagueness. Employees, had been called in order that the pickets might be informed that the
2. PDI, Nov. 19, 2001: People are getting dangerously passionate…emotionally demonstration must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of
charged. Declaring the law unconstitutional would trigger mass actions probably court and that the Court would not entertain their petitions for as long as the
more massive than those that led to People Power II. Holding the law pickets were maintained.
unconstitutional would lead to a crisis far worse than jueteng. People won’t just  Then, the Court en banc issued a resolution giving the said unions the opportunity
swallow an SC decision w/c is basically wrong. Sovereignty must prevail. to withdraw graciously and requiring the union leaders of Union of Filipro Employees
 De Vera’s defense: in the Nestle case and their counsel of record, Atty. Jose C. Espinas and the union
1. He had to make those statements since the integrity of the Court, including its leaders of petitioner Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Honorable members, was being viciously attacked. Nationalism-Olalia in the Kimberly case to appear before the Court show cause why
2. He & his group (Equal Justice for All Movement) were greatly disturbed by such they should not be held in contempt of court.
rumors.  Atty. Jose C. Espinas was further required to show cause why he should not be
3. His statements were factually accurate. He was merely exercising his administratively dealt with. Those required to appear complied with the same on the
constitutionally guaranteed rt to freedom of speech. It was an expression of his appointed date and time.
opinion & was historically correct.  Atty. Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologized
4. He did not make those statements to degrade the Court, destroy public to the Court for the above described acts, together with an assurance that they will
confidence in it & to bring it into disrepute. not be repeated. He likewise manifested to the Court that he had explained to the
picketers why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons were willing to
Issue: WON de Vera should be held in contempt of court. – YES. suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the circumstances.
Ratio:  He further stated that he had explained to the picketers that any delay in the
1. The judiciary must be allowed to decide cases independently, free of outside resolution of their cases is usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and
influence or pressure. Such is essential in maintaining democracy as well as peace & that the SC has always remained steadfast in its role as the guardian of the
order in society. Maintaining the dignity of courts & enforcing the duty of citizens to Constitution.
respect them are necessary to the administration of justice.  To confirm this, the Court required the respondents to submit a written
2. ROC, Rule 71, Sec. 3 (d) allows the court to hold liable for contempt anyone who’s manifestation to this effect, which they complied with
guilty of conduct directed against the dignity/authority of the court or of an act
obstructing the administration of justice w/c tends to bring the court into Issue: WON such apology may be accepted and the imposition of the sanction warranted
disrepute/disrespect. by the contemptuous acts described earlier be foregone.
3. Freedom of speech includes the rt to know & discuss judicial proceedings but it does  The SC accepted the apology and the sanction was foregone. It however warned
not include statements w/c aim to undermine the Court’s integrity & authority and that it will not hesitate in future similar situations to apply the full force of the law
and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the Court into acting one
way or the other in any case pending before it.
 Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e., through
appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect due to
the Courts as impartial administrators 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."
 The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free
governments. But, such right has never been invoked to shatter the standards of
propriety entertained for the conduct of courts.
 Moreover, "parties have a constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in
court by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publication or public clamor.
 The aforecited acts of the respondents are therefore not only an affront to the
dignity of this Court, but equally a violation of the above-stated right of the adverse
parties and the citizenry at large.
 We realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. The duty and
responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the
shoulders of their counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was
called by this Court, did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of
their acts and posture. Let this incident therefore serve as a reminder to all
members of the legal profession that it is their duty as officers of the court to
properly apprise their clients on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward
courts of justice, and to labor leaders of the importance of a continuing educational
program for their members.

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

CRUZ vs. SALVA [1959]
MARTELINO vs. ALEJANDRO [1970] Criminal Procedure. Dignity and serious order is required and mustn’t be treated
Facts: as entertainment. There is no discrimination as even news reporter can’t bring
♦ Major Eduardo Martelino is charged with the violation of the 94th and 97th Articles of their typewriter and printing press inside. In Estes v Texas, they said live tv
War, as a result of the alleged shooting on March 18, 1968 of some Muslim recruits broadcast is inherently a denial of the due process rights of a defendant. A
then undergoing commando training on the island of Corregidor. prejudicial effect on a witness may happen, from frightening them. The judges
♦ On August 12, 1969 Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of the too are human and can be affected.
general court-martial, following the latter's admission that he read newspaper stories The constitutional Judicial decorum needed inside the court must not give way to
of the Corregidor incident. Martelino contended that the case had received such an a reporter’s consti right which is not greater than an other member of the public.
amount of publicity in the press and other news media and in fact was being And live broadcast really does have a prejudicial effect, so also to protect due
exploited for political purposes in connection with the presidential election on process, live broadcast shall not be allowed.
November 11, 1969 as to imperil his right to a fair trial. After deliberating, the
military court denied the challenge. WON the press may be allowed.
♦ Respondents assert that despite the publicity which the case had received, no proof No, although judicial notice is given to how big a social catalyst the press is; the
has been presented showing that the court-martial's president's fairness and fundamental rights of the accused, the consti gurantees of freedom of the press,
impartiality have been impaired. On the contrary, they claim, the petitioner's own the right to public information, and the consti power of the court to control its
counsel expressed confidence in the "integrity, experience and background" of the proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial must be weighed. And the
members of the court. rights of the accused must be prioritized to be protected.
And the precious life and liberty of an accused that receives a verdict that would
Issue: WON the publicity given to the case against the petitioners was such as to come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased
prejudice their right to a fair trial? NO witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure whether open or subtle, in
proceedings devoid of histrionics that might influence and decreed by a judge
Ratio: with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or passions, must
♦ The spate of publicity in this case did not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but take priority. DUE PROCESS must be protected for the accused.
rather on the responsibility of the Government for what was claimed to be a Although the effect of television is not yet proven but it is not far fetched that it
"massacre" of Muslim trainees. gradually erodes our basal conception of a trial such as we know of it.
♦ If there was a "trial by newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners but of the The court does not take away the accused’s right to a public trial, but a public
Government. Absent here is a showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the trial is not the same things as publicized trial. Because a public trial ensures that
accused from massive publicity encouraged by those connected with the conduct of he is fairly dealt and wouldn’t be unjustly condemned, unlike in secret conclaves
the trial either by a failure to control the release of information or to remove the trial of the old. The court must provide for adequate facilities for an adequate number
to another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of prejudicial publicity shall have of public to watch and listen to the proceedings with decorum to report later on.
subsided. Indeed we cannot say that the trial of the petitioners was being held under Using Estes v Texas, the prejudice from a live telecast is admitted. Recognition
circumstances which did not permit the observance of those imperative decencies of of the same effects as above with additional effect on defendant. Where it is
procedure which have come to be identified with due process. considered to be a form of physical/mental harassment affecting dignity,
♦ Granting the existence of "massive" and "prejudicial" publicity, since the petitioners concentration etc.
The IBP expressed their comment. Saying that the a fair trial may not be assured
here do not contend that the respondents have been unduly influenced but simply
because the “hooting throng” may arrogate themselves the task of judging the
that they might be by the "barrage" of publicity, we think that the suspension of the
guilt. And there are also issues of the popular verdict subserving the ends of
court-martial proceedings has accomplished the purpose sought by the petitioners'
justice, pandered to by grandstanding lawyers.
challenge for cause, by postponing the trial of the petitioner until calmer times have
So even if the ConCom was silent on this matter, until 1991, the court had no
returned. The atmosphere has since been cleared and the publicity surrounding the
established case law yet. The court prohibited it before as not they do again.
Corregidor incident has so far abated that we believe the trial may now be resumed
in tranquillity.
WON the US cases cited by the minority really in pt.
NO, Although the Nebraska Press case struck down the order prohibiting the
publish of confessions or admissions strongly implicating the accused; the
Richmond Newspaper case where the judge closed the courtroom except to
3-13-01The Kapisanan ng Brodkaster ng Pilipinas(‘KBP) petitioned the courts to
witnesses when they testified was reversed; and the Globe Newspaper case
allow them live coverage of the trial of the plunder and other criminal cases filed
voided the Massachusetts law that prohibited the presence of the press when a
against Erap before the SB. It is to assure the public of full transparency in the
sexually molested child testified; the Chandler case on the burglary conviction of
proceedings of an unprecendented case in our history. Seconded by Mr. Cesar
2 policemen who said it was unfair as it was covered by television, the court said
Sarino, Sen. Renato Cayetano, and Atty. Ricardo Romulo.
”the consti violation perceived in Estes did not stem from physical disruption
4-17-01Then Sec of justice, Hernando Perez formally filed the instant petition,
that might one day disappear with technological advances in television
w/ following exegesis: it is public concern and interest(about highest official of
equipment but inhered in the hypothesis that the mere presence of cameras and
the land), consti right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern,
recording devices might have an effect on the trial participants prejudicial to the
ensuring transparency preventing the “railroading” of the instant case.
SO. Parenthetically, the US courts still do not allow live television and radio coverage.
This reexamines the 1991 resolution of this court in a case for libel filed by Cory.
Here they said that the live broadcasting of trials and even taking photographs
The court said that a change in the 1991 decision is not propitious risking a
while in progress are still forbidden in the US by Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of
relatively stable nation slowly recovering from EDSA II and III. Unlike other
gov’t offices the courts do not express the popular will. They must only 1. WON conviction was proper. – YES.
adjudicate what are justiciable controversies on the basis of what is submitted  There’s no question that Corsita was robbed of 7 chickens, 1 bolo, 2 pairs of pants &
before them. 2 shirts with the total value of P19.20 & that he died on the occasion of said robbery.
Though there was no eyewitness, accused executed their individual affidavits
A trial is not a free trade of ideas, nor is a competing market of thoughts the admitting their respective roles & participation. (see p.225 for details) None of the
known test for the truth. accused took the witness stand to repudiate their extra-judicial statements. Thus,
they’re presumed to be given voluntarily & w/o compulsion/inducement.
The court recognizes the modern techonologial and scientific advances but is NOT TAKING  Accused’s confessions + evidence of corpus delicti are sufficient to support their
THE CHANCE ON THE LIFE OR LIBERTY OF ANY PERSON in a hasty bid to apply these conviction.
advancements before safety nets are there. Petition is DENIED.  Their conduct before, during & after the crime was committed likewise reveal the
coordination of their efforts & community of design to commit the crime. There was
conspiracy in this case thus, it should be treated applying the rule “the act of one, is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. JAIME SOLIS, ARSENIO the act of all,” making all of them liable for each other’s acts.
MANCHOS & BERNARDITO KINTANAR, accused-appellants [1984]
2. WON the accused were deprived of due process for failure of the trial court
 July 28, 1968: Matea Hona came upon the body of Herminio Corsita in the yard of to afford them the rt to be defended by a lawyer of their choice. – NO.
latter’s house in Sorsogon. She reported the case to the brgy captain who then  They were given the chance to secure the services of the lawyer of their choice.
reported the case to the police. Wounds were found at the back of victim’s ears & Frequent postponements were actually caused by their failure to secure the services
some marks were seen at the back of his body. Also found were 2 pcs of of a lawyer of their choice.
bloodstained wound, a bolo, and other belongings of Corsita w/c were scattered at  They did not inform the trial court of their desire to be defended by a lawyer of their
the scene of the crime. A dead chicken was also found. Signs of struggle both inside choice. They did not object to the appointment of a counsel de oficio. It’s a well-
& outside the house of the victim were observed. settled rule that where a counsel has been assigned to a person on trial & counsel
 Two suspects were arrested but were later on released. acted w/o objection from the accused, the latter’s conviction can’t be set aside on
 Local police authorities received 3 anonymous letters 2mos after the crime was the sole ground that counsel was not of his own choice.
1. Letter#1: threat against Sgt. Guban & other members of the local police force 3. WON accused needed to testify to ensure the veracity & voluntariness of
2. Letter#2: tip re perpetrators who were allegedly living in Nasohi, Inararan, their confessions. – NO.
Bulan, Sorsogon.  None of them intimated that their confessions were extracted through violence or
 Police informants were sent to said place. They later on reported that the accused coercion. They even executed an express waiver to present evidence thus the court
were Solis, Manchos & Kintanar and that Solis killed Corsita. The police decided to had no choice but to decide based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. By
pick up Kintanar first since he was the least experienced. True enough, Kintanar executing the waiver, accused ran the risk of an inference of guilt especially if the
admitted his participation & confessed that Solis & Manchos were w/him when he mass of evidentiary details point to the gen. conclusion of his guilt. Court can’t
committed the crime. Solis & Manchos were arrested & they likewise admitted their imagine/surmise possible circumstances w/c might justify rejection of the factual
roles in the heinous crime. conclusions.
 Accused charged w/robbery w/homicide aggravated by superior strength, nighttime,
disregard of the age of the victim (70 yrs. old). Since there was no eyewitness, facts Holding: All accused are guilty as charged of robbery w/homicide. Lower court decision
were established by the info gathered during the investigation, circumstances leading affirmed.
to the arrest of the accused & the extrajudicial statements executed by the accused.
 Accused pleaded not guilty. LEDESMA vs. CLIMACO [SUPRA]
1. Their counsel de oficio moved for postponement of trial on the ground that they
were considering the possibility of changing their plea. However, counsel Ginete
failed to appear on trial date. QUILBAN vs. ROBINOL [1989]
2. Solis informed the Court that their counsel de parte, Atty. Carranza would
appear the following day. However, Carranza did not appear either.
3. By virtue of the accused’s manifestation that they already hired the services of
Carranza, Court granted w/drawal of Ginete as counsel de oficio. Trial was
moved to another date.
4. However, on the date of the trial, accused informed the court that their friends
& families were still raising money to pay for the services of the counsel of their
choice. Hearing was postponed again. But this time, court appointed Attys.
Paps, Dugan & Dino as attys. De oficio to avoid further delay.
5. Paps informed the court that only Dino would handle the case for all 3 accused.
Court granted w/drawal of Paps & Dugan.
6. Dino manifested that his clients were waiving their rt to adduce evidence then
asked for dismissal of the charge on ground of gross inadequacy of the evidence
to justify conviction.
 RTC: accused convicted as charged sentenced w/death penalty.
Issues & Ratio:
RICONADA TELEPHONE CO. vs. BUENVIAJE [1990] o in case the consent of attorney to be substituted cannot be
obtained there must be at least a proof of notice that the
Facts: motion for substitution has been served upon him in the
♦ July 30, 1971 – Francisco Imperial orally conveyed to Riconada a manner prescribed by the rules
certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a telephone ♦ In the present case there was no valid substitution. Neither can it be
company in Iriga for the consideration of P12,500 (125 shares of stocks said that Atty. Maggay formally withdrew as counsel for petitioner in the
at 100 per share) cases. Therefore, he continued to represent petitioner and he remained
♦ Riconada started to operate but it was only on October 14, 1971 that the counsel of record and was for all legal purposes, petitioners'
Imperial executed the deed of sale. attorney upon whom respondent court's processes may be served.
♦ September 21, 1972 – Imperial again sold the same certificate to Iriga ♦ Despite the filing of Atty. Santos of a motion for reconsideration, copy
telephone Company (ITELCO). As a result of the sale Imperial was of which he furnished the opposing counsel, Atty. Maggay is still
charged with Estafa and 2 actions was also filed against Imperial considered counsel of record. Not having formally withdrawn as
(contract of breach with damages and annulment of the Deed of Sale) counsel, the order denying the notice of appeal and appeal bond was
♦ Imperial was absolved in the criminal case and as such he moved for deemed properly served upon Atty. Maggay. Notice of the order to him
the dismissal of the civil case filed against him. This motion was was notice to petitioner and for all legal intents and purposes, the date
granted by the court and the MFR filed by the petitioner thru its of his receipt is considered the starting point from which the period to
counsel, Atty Benjamin Santos, was also denied. With the same appeal prescribed by law starts to run.
counsel Riconada filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. Imperial ♦ Some facts warrants a relaxation of the rule of the court because
opposed the appeal because it was filed out of time. The court denied Judge Buenviaje recognized Atty. Santos as the new counsel and as
the notice of appeal. In the decision of the court it stated that Atty. such there is a clear case of negligence when Atty. Santos was nor
Maggay was the counsel on record and as such the orders of the court furnished a copy of the order denying the reconsideration.
were received by him. ♦ Respondent judge's sudden change of posture in insisting that Atty.
♦ Petitioner went to the SC claiming that Judge Buenviaje gravely Maggay is the counsel of record is, therefore, a whimsical and
abused his discretion in denying their appeal. Petitioner contends that capricious exercise of discretion that prevented petitioner and Atty.
it received court processes thru Atty. Santos when the latter entered his Santos from taking a timely appeal from said order. Clearly, respondent
appearance in both cases by his filing of a notice of appearance and a judge committed grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of
motion for reconsideration of the orders of dismissal which he furnished jurisdiction in denying petitioner's notice of appeal.
the counsel of respondent Imperial. Specifically, it mentioned the order
of respondent judge sent to Atty. Benjamin Santos considering the Holding: the writs prayed for are GRANTED. Respondent trial court is hereby
motion for reconsideration submitted for resolution. It expressed ordered to allow the appeal of petitioner from the orders dismissing Civil Cases
amazement over the act of respondent judge in not sending to Atty. No. IR-265 and IR-578.
Santos a copy of the order denying the motion for reconsideration
knowing fully well that the period to appeal therefrom would lapse
without the knowledge of Atty. Santos, its new counsel. While admitting
that its notice of appeal and appeal bond was filed out of time;
petitioner considers such fact as the result of the collusion between
respondent judge and respondent Imperial.

Issue: WON the Judge Buenviaje committed grave abuse of discretion? YES
♦ The right of a client to terminate the authority of his counsel includes
the right to make a change or substitution at any stage of the
proceedings. Requisite for a valid substitution: LEDESMA vs. CLIMACO [SUPRA]
o upon written application
o with written consent of the client
o upon written consent of the attorney to be substituted