Adremesin, Johanna S.

Guerrero vs. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 82238-42, 13 November 1989

FACTS:

Petitioner George D. Carlos, thru his lawyer and herein co-petitioner Antonio T.
Guerrero, after losing in the criminal cases tried by respondent judge Adriano R.
Villamor, filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XXI of Cebu City an action for
damages, against respondent for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in the
aforesaid consolidated criminal cases. Complaint and summons were served on
respondent judge and on the following day, respondent judge issued an Order of Direct
Contempt of Court against petitioners, finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
direct contempt and sentencing them both to imprisonment of five (5) days and a fine
of P500.00 for degrading the respect and dignity of the court through the use of
derogatory and contemptuous language before the court. Petitioners filed an instant
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction or restraining order to stop the coercive
force of the Order of Contempt. The Court issued a temporary restraining order
enjoining and restraining respondent Judge Adriano R. Villamor from enforcing his order
of Direct Contempt of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge can issue an Order of Contempt against

petitioner by reason of the alleged contemptuous language in the complaint for
damages against respondent filed in Cebu?

RULING:

No. The Order of Direct Contempt of Court issued by respondent judge is

declared null and void. The instant petition for certiorari is granted. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued on March 22, 1988 is hereby made permanent. No costs.
"Contempt of court may be either direct or constructive. It is direct when
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt
proceedings before the same and constructive or indirect contempt is one committed
out or not in the presence of the courts. It is an act done in a distance which tends to
belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court and justice."
Based on the facts, the Court sustains petitioners’ contention that the alleged
derogatory language employed in the complaint did not constitute direct contempt but
may only constitute indirect contempt subject to defenses that may be raised by said,
petitioners in the proper proceedings. The use of disrespectful or contemptuous
language against a particular judge in pleadings presented in another court or
proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt as it is not tantamount to a misbehaviour in
the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
 Adelfa Properties, Inc. vs. Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza,
A.C. No. 8608, 16 October 2019

FACTS:

Atty. Restituto Mendoza was hired by an affiliate company of Adelfa Properties,

Inc. as one of its in-house counsel. From which, Sen. Manuel Villar, Jr. and his wife Sen.
Cynthia Villar were major stockholders of Adelfa. For several years, he was transferred
from one affiliated company to another and from one supervisor to another due to his
poor performance at work and in year 2009, he was informed by Cynthia Javares of his
poor annual performance evaluation made by the senior officers. In return, Atty.
Mendoza threatened them and claimed that he has information and documents against
the company boss. On the following days, Atty. Mendoza threatened Engr. Santos and
his family, attempted to extort money from the company and said that he will expose
incriminating information against Sen. Villar. Due to the breach of trust and confidence,
Adelfa sent a notice of termination to Atty. Mendoza. In year 2010, Atty. Mendoza had
himself interviewed by ABS-CBN TV Patrol and claimed that he was dismissed from
employment because he does not want to participate in the corrupt practices of the
company. As a result, a disbarment complaint was filed by the Adelfa Properties, Inc.
against Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza for violating the Lawyer’s Oath and several Canons
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Mendoza averred that he filed the labor
complaint in order to seek justice for his illegal termination, and that he never wanted
the media attention. The Court resolved to refer the case to the IBP and in its report
and recommendation, IBP-CBD found Atty. Mendoza guilty and recommended that he
be suspended for one year (1) from the practice of law. IBP-Board of Governors
resolved to adopt and approve with modification the report and recommendation,
instead of one (1) year, Atty. Mendoza be suspended from the practice of law for six (6)
months.

ISSUE:

Whether or not it was proper that Atty. Mendoza allowed himself to be

interviewed by media in connection with the labor case he filed against Adelfa
Properties, Inc?

RULING:

No. It was not proper. The Court finds Atty. Mendoza’s act of causing himself to
be interviewed by the media, thereby divulging information he has gathered in the
course of his employment with complainant in the media to be violative of Rules 13.02,
21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR. According to Rule 13.02, “A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party”. The acts of Atty. Mendoza constitute gross misconduct in his office
as attorney, for which a suspension from the practice of law is warranted. Wherefore,
the Court finds Atty. Restituto S. Mendoza guilty of violation of Rules 13.02, Canon 21,
21.01 and 21.02 of the CPR for which he is suspended for the practice of law for six (6)
months.
Caballero vs. Pilapil, A.C. No. 7075, 22 January 2020

FACTS:

Complainant Jose C. Caballero engaged the services of respondent Atty. Arlene

G. Pilapil to prepare a Deed of Sale upon a property purchased by the complainant.
Respondent received an amount for the payment of capital gains tax and her legal fees
and she also took the original copy of TCT No., the original sketch plan and tax
declaration of the property. Complainant again sought the services of respondent for
the preparation of a Deed of Sale upon another property purchased by the complainant
and his sisters. Respondent convinced the complainant that she could facilitate the
payment of the corresponding capital gains tax and was given a certain amount which
include her service fees. Respondent failed to pay said of taxes, thus, making the
complainant and his sisters’ to pay the penalties thereof. Respondent promised to
return the documents but failed to do so. Complainant sought the help of the Lupong
Tagapamayapa, but respondent failed to attend the mediation. Complainant wrote a
letter-complaint to the IBP-Cebu Chapter, which then scheduled a conference with the
respondent, but the latter still failed to appear. Complainant brought his complaint with
the OCA which referred the same to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Respondent failed
to comply with the several resolutions requiring her to file a comment on such
complaint. She also failed to return the money and documents despite the demands.
Complainant deemed it appropriate to resolve the case by referring the same to the IBP
since a considerable time had already lapsed and respondent was given several
opportunities to file her comment, which she failed to do.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent violated Rule 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16 and
Canon 17 of the CPR for her failure to return the money given to her by complainant for
the payment of capital gains tax and the documents she took from him?

RULING:

Yes. She is liable for violating such rules in the CPR. A lawyer shall hold in trust
all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession (Canon 16). A
lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for and from the
client (Rule 16.01). A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due
or upon demand (Rule 16.03). Respondent’s failure to pay corresponding taxes for the
transfer of title and to return the documents she took from the complainant violates the
trust and confidence reposed on her. She should not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
her and her negligence in connection therewith shall render her liable. Wherefore,
respondent is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and ordered to
return the money with legal interest to the complainant and further ordered to return to
the complainant the documents she took from him. Respondent is also ordered to pay
the fine of P1,000.00 imposed on her within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision.