Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LANTIN [1968]
Facts: LEDESMA vs. CLIMACO [1974]
Personalities:
♦ 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
1
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.
INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATION vs. INSULAR
AFURONG vs. AQUINO [1999] LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [1971]
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
2
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
th
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.
Issue: WON the Judge Buenviaje committed grave abuse of discretion? YES
Ratio:
♦ 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