IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINTS ATTY.

WENCESLAO
LAURETA, AND OF CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE IN G.R. NO.
68635 ENTITLED “EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE v. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELATE COURT, ET. AL.”

G.R. No. 230642, (EN BANC)

September 10, 2019
Reyes, J. Jr., J.:

Facts:
o Digna Maravilla died; thus, her husband Herminio Maravilla filed a petition to probate her will. This was
opposed by the siblings of Digna as her will left her husband the sole inheritor of her estate. This case
was elevated to the Supreme Court which upheld the validity of Mr. Maravilla’s inheritance.
o Unperturbed by the decision of the Court, Mrs. Ilustre penned several letters to each of the Associate
Judges of the Supreme Court who rendered the unfavorable judgement. She accused them of
rendering unjust Resolutions and collusion with the opposing counsel threatening them that she will file
a case in another forum to gain justice. True to her word she filed a criminal complaint before the
Ombudsman alleging among others that:
▪ The Justices of the Supreme Court rendered an unjust Minute Resolution and;
▪ Justic Yap and Solicitor General (counsel for the opposition) Sedfrey A. Ordonez using
their influence to render the said Minute Resolution;
o The Ombudsman dismissed the case. Thus, this case arose for the Supreme Court found Mrs. Ilustre
along side her counsel Atty. Laureta in contempt for attempting to bring the court into disrepute,
attempting to dislodge faith in the judicial system and for their lack of respect for and “exposing to public
ridicule, the two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad faith their integrity and claiming that
they knowingly rendered unjust judgments.”

Issue:
● WON the action of Mrs. Ilustre and Atty. Wenceslao was proper.

Ruling:
o No.
o “we find that respondent Ilustre has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment and
criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of justice in her letters addressed to the
individual Justices quoted in the show-cause Resolution of this Court en banc, particularly the
underlined portions thereof; in the language of the charges she filed before the Tanodbayan quoted and
underscored in the same Resolution; in her statements, conduct, acts and charges against the
Supreme Court and/or the official actions of the Justices concerned and her ascription of improper
motives to them; and in her unjustified outburst that she can no longer expect justice from this Court.
The fact that said letters are not technically considered pleadings, nor the fact that they were submitted
after the main petition had been finally resolved does not detract from the gravity of the contempt
committed. The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a shield
for contemptuous acts against the Court”
o “We likewise find that Atty. Laureta has committed acts unbecoming an officer of the Court for
his stance of dangling threats of bringing the matter to the "proper forum" to effect a change of
the Court’s adverse Resolution; for his lack of respect for and exposing to public ridicule, the
two highest Courts of the land by challenging in bad faith their integrity and claiming that they
knowingly rendered unjust judgments (Montecillo v. Gica, 60 SCRA 234 [1974]); for authoring, or at
the very least, assisting and/or abetting and/or not preventing the contemptuous statements, conduct,
acts and malicious charges of his client, respondent Ilustre, notwithstanding his disclaimer that he had
absolutely nothing to do with them, which we find disputed by the facts and circumstances of record as
above stated; for totally disregarding the facts and circumstances and legal considerations set forth in
this Court’s Resolutions of the First Division and en banc, as the Tribunal of last resort; for making it
appear that the Justices of this Court and other respondents before the Tanodbayan are charged with
"graft and corruption" when the complaint before the Tanodbayan, in essence, is a tirade from a
disgruntled litigant and a defeated counsel in a case that has been brought thrice before this Court, and
who would readily accept anything but the soundness of the judgments of the Courts concerned, all
with the manifest intent to bring the Justices of this Court and of the Court of Appeals into disrepute and
to subvert public confidence in the Courts.”
o ACCORDINGLY, (1) respondent Eva Maravilla Ilustre is hereby held in contempt, and is hereby fined in
the amount of P1,000.00 only, mindful that the power of contempt should be exercised on the
preservative and not on the vindictive principle of punishment; and.

(2) Atty. Wenceslao Laureta is found guilty of grave professional misconduct, rendering him unfit to
continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney, and
is hereby suspended from the practice of law until further Orders, the suspension to take effect
immediately.
Let copies of this Resolution be circulated to all Courts of the country for their information and
guidance, and spread in the personal record of Atty. Wenceslao Laureta.

SO ORDERED