cases 22-36

7/21/2019 cases 22-36

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-22-36 1/143

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

December 3, 1948

In re Investigation o !"#E$ %& P!R!'O or a((ege) (ea*age o +estions in some sb-ects in t.e 1948/ar E0aminations&

Felixberto M. Serrano for respondent.

Enrique M. Fernando and Francisco A. Rodrigo, Abelardo Subido, and Arturo A. Alafriz (for the Philippine

a!"ers# Association$ as a%ici curiae.

MO"TEM!OR, J.:

The present case had its origin in a story or news item prepared and written by the defendant, Angel ! Para"o,

a duly accredited reporter of the Star Reporter , a local daily of general circulation, that appeared on the front

page of the issue of #eptember $%, $&%'! The story was preceded by the headline in large letters ( )C*A+M

*EA- +N *A#T BAR TE#T#,) followed by another in slightly smaller letters ( )Applicants +n .proar, /ant

Anomaly Probed0 1ne #chool 2a3ored,) under the name ( )By Angel ! Para"o of the Star Reporter #taff!) 2or

purposes of reference we 4uote the news item in full5

*ea6age in some sub7ects in the recent bar e8aminations were denounced by some of the law

graduates who too6 part in the tests, to the Star Reporter this morning!

These e8aminees claim to ha3e seen mimeograph copies of the 4uestions in one sub7ect, days beforethe tests were gi3en, in the Philippine Normal #chool!

1nly students of one pri3ate uni3ersity in #ampaloc had those mimeographed 4uestions on said

sub7ect fully one wee6 before the tests!

The students who made the denunciation to the Star Reporter claim that the tests actually gi3en were

similar in e3ery respect to those they had seen students of this pri3ate uni3ersity holding proudly

around the city!

The students who claim to ha3e seen the tests which lea6ed are demanding that the #upreme Court

institute an immediate probe into the matter, to find out the source of the lea6age, and annul the test

papers of the students of the particular uni3ersity possessed of those tests before the e8aminations!

The disco3ery of the alleged lea6age in the tests of the bar e8aminations came close on the heels of

the re3elations in the Philippine &ollegian, official organ of the student body of the .ni3ersity of the

Philippines, on recent go3ernment tests wherein the 4uestions had come into the possession of nearly

all the graduates of some pri3ate technical schools!

To the publication, e3idently, the attention of the #upreme Court must ha3e been called, and Mr! ustice Padilla,

who had pre3iously been designated Chairman of the Committee of Bar E8aminers for this year, by authority of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the Court, instructed Mr! ose de la Cru" as Commissioner with the assistance of Mr! E! #oriano, Cler6 of Court

to cite Mr! Para"o for 4uestioning and in3estigation! +n this connection, and for purposes of showing the interest

of the #upreme Court in the news item and its implications, it may here be stated that this Court is and for

many years has been, in charge of the Bar E8aminations held e3ery year, including that of this year, held in

August, $&%'! #ection $9, Article :+++ of the Constitution of the Philippines authori"es this Court to promulgate

rules concerning admission to the practice of law, and pursuant to that authority, Rule $;< of the Rules of Court

was promulgated, under which rule, this Court conducts the Bar E8aminations yearly, appoints a Committee ofBar E8aminers to be presided by one of the ustices, to ser3e for one year, acts on the report of the committee

and finally, admits to the Bar and to the practice of law, the candidates and e8aminees who ha3e passed the

e8aminations!

The in3estigation of Mr! Para"o was conducted on #eptember $', $&%', on which occasion he testified under

oath and, answering 4uestions directed to him by Messrs! Cru" and #oriano admitted that he was the author of

the news item0 that he wrote up the story and had it published, in good faith and in a spirit of public ser3ice0 and

that he 6new the persons who ga3e him the information which formed the basis of his publication but that he

declined to re3eal their names because the information was gi3en to him in confidence and his informants did

not wish to ha3e their identities re3ealed! The in3estigators informed Para"o that this was a serious matter

in3ol3ing the confidence of the public in the regularity and cleanliness of the Bar E8aminations and also in the

#upreme Court which conducted said e8aminations, and repeatedly appealed to his ci3ic spirit and sense ofpublic ser3ice, pleading with and urging him to re3eal the names of his informants so that the #upreme Court

may be in a position to start and conduct the necessary in3estigation in order to 3erify their charge and

complaint and ta6e action against the party or parties responsible for the alleged irregularity and anomaly, if

found true, but Para"o consistently refused to ma6e the re3elation!

+n the meantime, the writer of this opinion who was appointed to the #upreme Court as associate ustice in the

latter part of August, $&%', was designated to succeed Mr! ustice Padilla as Chairman of the Committee of Bar

E8aminers when the said ustice was appointed #ecretary of ustice! The writer of this opinion was furnished a

copy of the transcript of the in3estigation conducted on #eptember $', $&%', and he made a report thereof to

the Court in banc, resulting in the issuance of the resolution of this Court dated 1ctober <, $&%', which reads

as follows5

+n relation with the news item that appeared in the front page of the Star Reporter , issue of #eptember

$%, $&%', regarding alleged lea6age in some bar e8amination 4uestions, which e8aminations were

held in August $&%', Mr! ose de la Cru", as Commissioner, and Mr! E! #oriano, as Cler6 of Court,

were authori"ed by Mr! ustice #abino Padilla then chairman of the committee of bar e8aminers to

conduct an in3estigation thereof, particularly to recei3e the testimony of Mr! Angel ! Para"o, the

reporter responsible for and author of said news item! An in3estigation was conducted on #eptember

$', $&%'0 stenographic notes were ta6en of the testimony of Mr! Para"o, and Mr! ustice Marcelino R!

Montemayor, the new chairman of the committee of bar e8aminers, has submitted the transcript of said

notes for the consideration of this Court!

2rom the record of said in3estigation, it is clear that Mr! Para"o has deliberately and consistently

declined and refused to re3eal the identity of the persons supposed to ha3e gi3en him the data andinformation on which his news item was based, despite the repeated appeals made to his ci3ic spirit,

and for his cooperations, in order to enable this Court to conduct a thorough in3estigation of the

alleged bar e8amination anomaly, Resol'ed , to authori"e Mr! ustice Montemayor to cite Mr! Para"o

before him, e8plain to him that the interests of the #tate demand and so this Court re4uires that he

re3eal the source or sources of his information and of his news item, and to warn him that his refusal to

ma6e the re3elation demanded will be regarded as contempt of court and penali"ed accordingly! Mr!

ustice Montemayor will ad3ise the Court of the result!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Acting upon this resolution, the writer of this opinion cited Mr! Para"o to appear before him on 1ctober $9,

$&%'! =e appeared on the date set and it was clearly e8plained to him that the interest of the #tate demands

and this court re4uires that he re3eal the source of sources of his information and of his news item0 that this

was a 3ery serious matter in3ol3ing the confidence of the people in general and the law practitioners and bar

e8aminees in particular, in the regularity and cleanliness of the bar e8aminations0 that it also in3ol3es the good

name and reputation of the bar e8aminers who are appointed by this Court to prepare the bar e8aminations

4uestions and later pass upon and correct the e8aminations 4uestions and last but not least, it also in3ol3esand is bound to affect the confidence of the whole country in the 3ery #upreme Court which is conducting the

bar e8aminations! +t was further e8plained to him that the #upreme Court is 6eenly interested in in3estigating

the alleged anomaly and lea6age of the e8amination 4uestions and is determined to punish the party or parties

responsible therefor but that without his help, specially the identities of the persons who furnished him the

information and who could gi3e the court the necessary data and e3idence, the Court could not e3en begin the

in3estigation because there would be no basis from which to start, not e3en a clue from which to formulate a

theory! *astly, Para"o was told that under the law he could be punished if he refused to ma6e the re3elation,

punishment which may e3en in3ol3e imprisonment!

Because of the seriousness of the matter, Para"o was ad3ised to thin6 it o3er and consider the conse4uences,

and if he need time within which to do this and so that he might e3en consult the editor and publisher of his

paper, the Star Reporter , he could be gi3en an e8tension of time, and at his re4uest, the in3estigation waspostponed to 1ctober $>, $&%'! 1n that date he appeared, accompanied by his counsel, Atty! 2eli8berto M!

#errano! The writer of this opinion in the presence of his counsel, se3eral newspapermen, Cler6 of Court

#oriano, ?eputy Cler6 of Court Cru", and Mr! Chanliongco made a formal demand on Mr! Para"o to re3eal the

identities of his informants, under oath, but he declined and refused to ma6e the re3elation! At the re4uest of

his counsel, that before this Court ta6e action upon his refusal to re3eal, he be accorded a hearing, with the

consent of the Court first obtained, a public hearing was held on the same day, 1ctober $>, $&%' in the course

of which, Attorney #errano e8tensi3ely and ably argued the case of his client, in3o6ing the benefits of Republic

Act No! >9, the first section of which reads as follows5

#ECT+1N $! The publisher, editor or duly accredited reporter of any newspaper, maga"ine or

periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to re3eal the source of any news@report or

information appearing in said publication which was related in confidence to such publisher, editor orreporter, unless the court or a =ouse or committee of Congress finds that such re3elation is demanded

by the interest of the state!

This Court has gi3en this case prolonged, careful and mature consideration, in3ol3ing as it does interesting and

important points of law as well as 4uestions of national importance! Counsel contends that the phrase )interest

of the state) found at the end of section $ of Republic Act No! >9 means and refers only to the security of the

state, that is to say ( that only when ational Securit" or public safet" is in3ol3ed, may this Court compel the

defendant to re3eal the source or sources of his news report or information! /e confess that it was not easy to

decide this legal 4uestion on which the con3iction or ac4uittal of Para"o hinges! As a matter of facts, the 3ote of

the ustice is not unanimous!

+n an effort to determine the intent of the *egislature that passed Republic Act No! >9, particularly the #enatewere it originated, we e8amined the record of the proceedings in said legislati3e body when this Act, then

#enate Bill No! was being discussed! /e gathered from the said record that the original bill prepared by

#enator #otto pro3ided that the immunity to be accorded a publisher, editor, or reporter of any newspaper was

absolute and that under no circumstance could he be compelled to re3eal the source of his information or news

report! The committee, howe3er, under the chairmanship of #enator Cuenco inserted an amendment or

change, by adding to the end of section $ of the clause )unless the court finds that such re3elation is

demanded by the public interest.)

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/hen the bill as amended was recommended for appro3al on second reading, #enator #otto, the author of the

original bill proposed an amendment by eliminating the clause added by the committee ( )unless the court

finds that such re3elation is demanded by the public interest,) claiming that said clause would 6ill the purposed

of the bill! This amendment of #enator #otto was discussed! :arious #enators ob7ected to the elimination of the

clause already referred to on the ground that without such e8ception and by gi3ing complete immunity to

editors, reporters, etc!, many abuses may be committed! #enator Cuenco, Committee chairman, in ad3ocating

the disappro3al of the #otto amendment, and in defending the e8ception embodied in the amendmentintroduced by the Committee, consisting in the clause5 )unless the court finds that such re3elation is demanded

by the public interest,) said that the Committee could not accept the #otto amendment because there may be

cases, perhaps few, in which the interest of the public or the interest of the state re4uired that the names of the

informants be published or 6nown! =e ga3e as one e8ample a case of a newspaperman publishing information

referring to a theft of the plans of forts or fortifications! =e argued that if the immunity accorded a

newspaperman should be absolute, as sought by the #otto amendment, the author of the theft might go scott@

free! /hen the #otto amendment was put to a 3ote, it was disappro3ed! 2inally, #enator #otto proposed

another amendment by changing the phrase )public interest) at the end of section $ as amended by the

Committee be changed to and substituted by the phrase )interest of the state,) claiming that the phrase public

interest was too elastic! /ithout much discussion this last amendment was appro3ed, and this phrase is now

found in the Act as finally appro3ed!

+n 3iew of the contention now ad3anced, that the phrase )interest of the state) is confined to cases in3ol3ing the

)security of the state) or )public safet",) one might wonder or speculate on why the last amendment proposed

by #enator #otto, changing the phrase )public interest) to )interest of the state,) was appro3ed without much

discussion! But we notice from the records of the deliberations on and discussion of the bill in the #enate that

the phrase )public interest) was used interchangeably by some #enators with the phrase )interest of the state!)

2or instance, although the bill, as amended by the Committee presided by #enator Cuenco, used the words

)public interest, )when #enator Cuenco sponsored the bill before the #enate he used in his speech or remar6s

the phrase )interest of the #tate) interes del Estado! Again, although the bill, as sponsored by the Cuenco

Committee and discussed by the #enate, used the words )public interest, )#enator #ebastian referred to the

e8ception by using the phrase )interest of the state!) This understanding of at least two of the #enators, who

too6 part in the discussion, about the similarity or interchangeability of the two phrases )public interest) and

)interest of the estate,) may account for the readiness or lac6 of ob7ection on the part of the #enate, after it hadre7ected the first #otto amendment, to accept the second #otto amendment, changing the phrase )public

interest) to )interest of the state!)

+n referring to a case wherein the security of the state or public safet" was in3ol3ed, such as the theft of the

plans of fortifications, #enator Cuenco was ob3iously gi3ing it only as an e8ample of what he meant by )interest

of the state0) it was not meant to be the only case or e8ample! /e do not propose to define or fi8 the limits or

scope of the phrase )interest of the state0) but we can say that the phrase )interest of the state) can not be

confined and limited to the )security of the state) or to )public safet") alone! These synonymous phrases, (

)security of the state) and )public safet" ,) ( are not uncommon terms and we can well presume that the

legislators were familiar with them! The phrase )public safet",) is used in Article +++, section $> of the

Constitution of the Philippines, where it says that )the pri3acy of communications and correspondence shall be

in3iolable e8cept upon lawful order of the court or when public safet" and order re4uire otherwise0) and Article:++, section $D; of the same Constitution pro3ided that the President may suspend the pri3ileges of the writ of

habeas corpus, in case of in3asion, insurrection, etc!, when the public safet" re4uires it!

The phrase )ational Securit" ) is used at the beginning of Boo6 ++ of the Re3ised Penal Code, thus5 Title +, (

Crimes against ational Securit" and the law of Nations, Chapter +, ( Crimes against ational Securit" ! Then,

more recently, the phrase )ational Securit" ) was used in section ;, and the phrase )public securit") was

e4ually used in section $&, of Commonwealth Act No! '; creating the Peoples Court, promulgated on

#eptember ;>, $&%>! +f, as contended, the Philippine Congress, particularly the Philippine #enate, had meant

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


to limit the e8ception to the immunity of newspapermen only to cases where the )security of the state,) i!e!,

)ational Securit" ) is in3ol3ed, it could easily and readily ha3e used such phrase or any one of similar phrases

li6e )public safet",) )ational Securit" ,) or )public securit") of which it must ha3e been familiar! #ince it did not

do so, there is 3alid reason to belie3e that that was not in the mind and intent of the legislators, and that, in

using the phrase )interest of the state,) it e8tended the scope and the limits of the e8ception when a

newspaperman or reporter may be compelled to re3eal the sources of his information!

The phrase )interest of the state) is 4uite broad and e8tensi3e! +t is of course more general and broader than

)security of the state!) Although not as broad and comprehensi3e as )public interest) which may include most

anything though of minor importance, but affecting the public, such as for instance, the establishment and

maintenance of barrio roads, electric light and ice plants, par6s, mar6ets, etc!, the phrase )interest of the

estate) e3en under a conser3ati3e interpretation, may and does include cases and matters of national

importance in which the whole state and nations, not only a branch or instrumentality thereof such as a

pro3ince, city or town, or a part of the public, is interested or would be affected, such as the principal functions

of o3ernment li6e administration of 7ustice, public school system, and such matters li6e social 7ustice, scientific

research, practice of law or of medicine, impeachment of high o3ernment officials, treaties with other nations,

integrity of the three coordinate branches of the o3ernment, their relations to each other, and the discharge of

their functions, etc!

/e are satisfied that the present case easily comes under the phrase )interest of the state!) .nder

constitutional pro3ision, article :+++, section $9, Constitution of the Philippines, the #upreme Court ta6es charge

of the admission of members to the Philippine Bar! By its Rules of Court, it has prescribed the 4ualifications of

the candidates to the Bar E8aminations, and it has e4ually prescribed the sub7ect of the said Bar E8aminations!

E3ery year, the #upreme Court appoints the Bar e8aminers who prepare the 4uestions, then correct the

e8amination papers submitted by the e8aminees, and later ma6e their report to the #upreme Court! 1nly those

Bar E8amination candidates who are found to ha3e obtained to passing grade are admitted to the Bar and

licensed to practice law! There are now thousands of members of the Philippine Bar, scattered all o3er the

Philippines, practicing law or occupying important o3ernment posts re4uiring membership in the Bar as a

prere4uisite, and e3ery year, 4uite a number, sometimes se3eral hundreds, are added to the legal fold! The

#upreme Court and the Philippine Bar ha3e always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession,

both in academic preparation and legal training, as well as in honesty and fair dealing! The Court and thelicensed lawyers themsel3es are 3itally interested in 6eeping this high standard0 and one of the ways of

achie3ing this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are 6nown to be

honest, possess good moral character, and show proficiency in and 6nowledge of the law by the standard set

by this Court by passing the Bar E8aminations honestly and in the regular and usual manner! +t is of public

6nowledge that perhaps by general inclination or the conditions obtaining in this country, or the great demand

for the ser3ices of licensed lawyers, law as compared to other professions, is the most popular in these islands!

The predominantly greater number of members of the Bar, schools and colleges of law as compared to those of

other learned professions, attest to this fact! And one important thing to bear in mind is that the udiciary, from

the #upreme Court down to the ustice of the Peace Courts, pro3incial fiscalships and other prosecuting

attorneys, and the legal departments of the o3ernment, draw e8clusi3ely from the Bar to fill their positions!

Conse4uently, any charge or insinuation of anomaly in the conduct of Bar E8aminations, of necessity is imbued

with wide and general interest and national importance!

+f it is true that Bar E8amination 4uestions, for some reason or another, find their way out and get into the

hands of Bar e8aminees before the e8aminations are actually gi3en, and as a result thereof some e8aminees

succeed in illegally and improperly obtaining passing grades and are later admitted to the Bar and to the

practice of law, when otherwise they should not be, then the present members of the legal profession would

ha3e reason to resent and be alarmed0 and if this is continued it would not be long before the legal profession

will ha3e fallen into disrepute! The public would naturally lose confidence in the lawyers, specially in the new

ones, because a person contemplating to go to court to see6 redress or to defend himself before it would not

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


6now whether a particular lawyer to whom he is entrusting his case has legally passed the Bar E8aminations

because of sufficient and ade4uate preparation and training, and that he is honest, or whether he was one of

those who had succeeded in getting hold of Bar E8amination 4uestions in ad3ance, passed the Bar

E8aminations illegally, and then started his legal career with this act of dishonesty! Particularly, the Bar

e8aminees who, by intense study and conscientious preparations, ha3e honestly passed the Bar E8aminations

and are admitted to practice law, would be affected by this anomaly, because they would e3er be under a cloud

of suspicion, since from the point of 3iew of the public, they might be among those who had made use of BarE8amination 4uestions obtained before hand! And, incidentally, the morale of the hundreds of students and

graduates of the different law schools, studying law and later preparing for the Bar E8aminations, would be

affected, e3en disastrously, for in them may be born the idea that there is no need of much law study and

preparation inasmuch as it is possible and not difficult to obtain copies of 4uestions before the e8aminations

and pass them and be admitted to the Bar!

The cloud of suspicion would, e4ually, hang o3er the Bar e8aminers themsel3es, eight eminent lawyers who in

a spirit of public ser3ice and ci3ic spirit, ha3e consented to ser3e on the Committee of E8aminers at the re4uest

and designation of this Court! They would be suspected, ( one or two or more of them ( that through

negligence, or conni3ance, or downright corruption, they ha3e made possible the release if they ha3e not

themsel3es actually released, before e8amination day, the 4uestions they had prepared! The employees of the

#upreme Court in charge of the Bar E8aminations, specially those who copy or mimeograph the original copiesfurnished by the Bar e8aminers, would all be under suspicion! And, lastly, and more important still, the #upreme

Court itself which has to o3erall super3ision and control o3er the e8aminations, would share the suspicion, as a

result of which the confidence of the people in this =igh Tribunal, which public confidence, the members of this

Court li6e to thin6 and belie3e, it still en7oys, might be affected and sha6en! All these considerations of 3ital

importance, in our opinion, can and will sufficiently cause the present case to fall and be included within the

meaning of the phrase )interest of the state,) in3ol3ing as it does, not only the interests of students and

graduates of the law schools and colleges, and of the entire legal profession of this country as well as the good

name and reputation of the members of the Committee of Bar E8aminers, including the employees of the

#upreme Court ha3ing charge of and connections with said e8aminations, but also the highest Tribunal of the

land itself which represents one of the three coordinate and independent branches or departments of the

Philippine o3ernment!

+n support of if not in addition to the power granted by section $ of Republic Act! No! >9 to this Court, we ha3e

the inherent power of courts in general, specially of the #upreme Court as representati3e of the udicial

?epartment, to adopt proper and ade4uate measures to preser3e their integrity, and render possible and

facilitate the e8ercise of their functions, including, as in the present case, the in3estigation of charges of error,

abuse or misconduct of their officials and subordinates, including lawyers, who are officers of the Court!

Pro3ince of Tarlac 's! ale, ; Phil!, 9>D0 ;$ C!!#! %$, $9'! As we ha3e pre3iously stated, the re3elation

demanded of the respondent, of the identity of his informants, is essential and necessary to the in3estigation of

the charge contained in the publication already mentioned!

+t will be noticed from Para"os news item as 4uoted in the first part of this decision, that, informants, law

graduates and bar e8aminees, were denouncing the supposed anomaly ( consisting of the alleged lea6age of

the Bar E8amination 4uestions ( to the #upreme Court for due in3estigation! +f those persons really meant andintended to ma6e a bona fide and effecti3e denunciation, with e8pectation of results, the right place to air their

grie3ance was the #upreme Court itself, not a newspaper0 and if they truly wanted an in3estigation, they should

ha3e come forward and furnished or stood ready to furnish the facts on which to base and from which to start

an in3estigation, instead of concealing themsel3es behind the curtain of press immunity!

E8amining the news item in 4uestion, it is therein claimed and assured that Bar E8amination 4uestions in at

least one sub7ect had been obtained and used by bar e8aminees coming from a certain uni3ersity, one wee6

before the e8aminations were actually held! Para"o in his statements and answers during the in3estigation said

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


that e8amination 4uestions in se3eral sub7ects were in3ol3ed in the anomaly! But no copy or copies of said

e8amination 4uestions were furnished us! No one is willing to testify that he actually saw said alleged copies of

e8amination 4uestions0 that they were actually and carefully compared with the legitimate e8amination

4uestions gi3en out on the day of the e8amination and found to be identical0 no one is ready and willing to

re3eal the identity of the persons or bar e8aminees said to ha3e been seen with the said Bar E8amination

4uestions, although they as well as the uni3ersity where they came from, was 6nown0 and e3en the law

sub7ects to which the 4uestions pertained are not disclosed0 and, lastly, we are not allowed to 6now e3en theidentity of respondent Para"os informants who claim to ha3e seen all these things!

+n this connection it may be stated that in the las Bar E8aminations held in August, $&%', appro8imately nine

hundred candidates too6 them, each candidate writing his answers in a boo6 for each sub7ect! There were eight

sub7ects, each belonging to and corresponding to each one of the eight bar e8aminers! There were therefore

eight sets of bar e8amination 4uestions, and multiplying these eight sets of 4uestions by nine hundred

candidates, gi3es a total of se3en thousand two hundred <,;DD e8amination papers in3ol3ed, in the hand of

eight different e8aminers! The e8amination boo6s or papers bear no names or identifications of their writers or

owners and said ownership and identification will not be 6nown until the boo6s or papers are all corrected and

graded! /ithout definite assurance based on reliable witnesses under oath that the alleged anomaly had

actually been committed, ( e3idence on the identity of the persons in possession of the alleged copies of

4uestions prematurely released or illegally obtained and made use of, the law sub7ects or sub7ects in3ol3ed, theuni3ersity from which said persons come, this Court does not feel capable of or warranted in ta6ing any step,

such as blindly and desperately re3ising each and e3ery one of the <,;DD e8amination boo6s with the fond but

forlorn hope of finding any similarity or identity in the answers of any group of e8aminees and basing thereon

any definite finding or conclusion! Apart from the enormity of the tas6 and its hopelessness, this Court may not

and cannot base its findings and conclusions, especially in any serious and delicate matter as is the present,

on that 6ind of e3idence! .nder these circumstances, this Court, for lac6 of basis, data and information, is

unable to conduct, nay, e3en start, an in3estigation0 and, unless and until the respondent herein re3eals the

identities of his informants, and those informants and or others with facts and reliable e3idence, aid and

cooperate with the Court in its endea3or to further e8amine and probe into the charges contained in the news

items, said charges are considered and held to be without basis, proof or foundation!

/hen the #upreme Court decided to demand of the respondent herein that he re3eal the names of hisinformants, it was not impelled or moti3ated by mere idle curiosity! +t truly wanted information on which to start

an in3estigation because it is 3itally interested in 6eeping the Bar E8aminations clean and abo3e board and

specially, not only to protect the members of the Bar and those aspiring for membership therein and the public

dealing with the members thereof and the Bar E8aminers who cooperate with and act as agents of this Court in

preparing the e8amination 4uestions and correcting the e8amination papers, but also, as already stated, to

6eep the confidence of the people in this =igh Tribunal as regards the discharge of its function relati3e to the

admission to the practice of law! These, it can only do by in3estigating any Bar E8amination anomaly, fi8ing

responsibility and punishing those found guilty, e3en annulling e8aminations already held, or else declaring the

charges as not pro3en, if, as a result of the in3estigation, it is found that there is insufficiency or lac6 of

e3idence! +n demanding from the respondent that he re3eal the sources of his information, this Court did not

intend to punish those informants or hold them liable! +t merely wanted their help and cooperation! +n this

Courts endea3or to probe thoroughly the anomaly, or irregularity allegedly committed, it was its intention notonly to adopt the necessary measures to punish the guilty parties, if the charges are found to be true, but also

e3en to annul the e8aminations themsel3es, in 7ustice to the innocent parties who had ta6en but did not pass

the e8aminations! /e say this because in e3ery e8amination, whether conducted by the o3ernment or by a

pri3ate institution, certain standards are unconsciously adopted on which to base the passing grade! 2or

instance, if, as a result of the correction of many or all of the e8amination papers, it is found that only 3ery few

ha3e passed it, the e8aminer might reasonably thin6 that the 4uestions he ga3e were unduly difficult or hard to

understand, or too long, as a result of which he may be more liberal and be more lenient and ma6e allowances!

1n the hand, if too many obtain passing grade, the e8aminer may thin6 that the e8amination 4uestions were

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


too easy and constitute an inade4uate measure of the legal 6nowledge and training re4uired to be a lawyer,

and so he may raise his standard and become more strict in his correction of the papers and his appreciation of

the answers! #o, in a case where e8aminees, especially if many, succeed in getting hold of 4uestions long

before e8aminations day, and study and prepare the answers to those 4uestions, it may result that when the

e8aminer finds that many of the e8aminees ha3e easily and correctly answered the 4uestions, he may thin6

that said 4uestions were too easy, raise the standard by being strict in his correction of the papers, thereby

gi3ing a grade below passing to a number of e8aminees who otherwise would ha3e 3alidly passed thee8aminations!

+n conclusion, we find that the interest of the state in the present case demands that the respondent Angel !

Para"o re3eal the source or sources of his information which formed the basis of his news items or story in the

#eptember $%, $&%' issue of the Star Reporter , 4uoted at the beginning of his decision, and that, in refusing to

ma6e the re3elation which this Court re4uired of him, he committed contempt of Court! The respondent

repeatedly stated during the in3estigation that he 6new the names and identities of the persons who furnished

him the information! +n other words, he omitted and still refuses to do an act commanded by this Court which is

yet in his power to perform! Rule %, section <, Rules of Court!1rdinarily, in such cases, he can and should be

imprisoned indefinitely until he complied with the demand! =owe3er, considering that case li6e the present are

not common or fre4uent, in this 7urisdiction, and that there is no reason and immediate necessity for imposing a

hea3y penalty, as may be done in other cases where it is ad3isable or necessary to mete out se3ere penaltiesto meet a situation of an alarming number of cases of a certain offense or a crime wa3e, and, considering

further the youthful age of the respondent, the ma7ority of the members of this Court ha3e decided to order, as it

hereby orders, his immediate arrest and confinement in 7ail for a period of one $ month, unless, before the

e8piration of that period he ma6es to this Court the re3elation demanded of him! #o ordered!

Moran, &.*., +zaeta, Feria, Pablo, engzon, and -uason, **., concur.


SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

!&C& "o& 2482 Setember , 554

EMM! T& D!"TES, complainant,

3s!

!TT& CRISPI" #& D!"TES, respondent!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


? E C + # + 1 N

PER CURIAM 6

?espite 3ariations in the specific standards and pro3isions, one re4uirement remains constant in all the

7urisdictions where the practice of law is regulated5 the candidate must demonstrate that he or she has )good

moral character,) and once he becomes a lawyer he should always beha3e in accordance with the standard! +n

this 7urisdiction too, good moral character is not only a condition precedent$ to the practice of law, but an

unending re4uirement for all the members of the bar! =ence, when a lawyer is found guilty of grossly immoral

conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred!;

+n an Affida'it&o%plaint 9 dated une , ;DD$, filed with the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines +BP, Emma T!

?antes, sought the disbarment of her husband, Atty! Crispin ! ?antes on the ground of immorality,

abandonment, and 3iolation of professional ethics and law! The case was doc6eted as CB? Case No! D$@'>$!

Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer! Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit relationships

with two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them! 2rom the time respondentFs illicit

affairs started, he failed to gi3e regular support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to

wor6 abroad to pro3ide for their childrenFs needs! Complainant pointed out that these acts of respondent

constitute a 3iolation of his lawyerFs oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role model to the

community!

1n uly %, ;DD$, the +BP Commission on Bar ?iscipline issued an +rder % re4uiring respondent to submit his

answer to the Affida'it&o%plaint !

Respondent submitted his Ans!er > on No3ember $&, ;DD$! Though admitting the fact of marriage with the

complainant and the birth of their children, respondent alleged that they ha3e mutually agreed to separate

eighteen $' years before after complainant had abandoned him in their Balintawa6 residence and fled to #an

2ernando, Pampanga! Respondent claimed that when complainant returned after eighteen years, she insisted

that she be accommodated in the place where he and their children were residing! Thus, he was forced to li3e

alone in a rented apartment!

Respondent further alleged that he sent their children to the best school he could afford and pro3ided for their

needs! =e e3en bought two lots in Pampanga for his sons, ?andelo and ?ante, and ga3e complainant

ade4uate financial support e3en after she had abandoned him in $&'9!

Respondent asserted that complainant filed this case in order to force him to remit se3enty percent <DG of his

monthly salary to her!

#ubse4uently, the +BP conducted its in3estigation and hearings on the complaint! Complainant presented her

e3idence, both oral and documentary, to support the allegations in her Affida'it&o%plaint.

2rom the e3idence presented by the complainant, it was established that on anuary $&, $&<&, complainant

and respondent were married< and li3ed with the latter Fs mother in Balintawa6! At that time, respondent was 7ust

a fourth year law student! To ma6e ends meet, complainant engaged in the buy and sell business and relied on

dole@outs from the respondentFs mother!

Three children were born to the couple, namely, ?andelo, ?ante and ?aisy, who were born on 2ebruary ;D,

$&'D,' 1ctober $%, $&'$& and August $$, $&'9,$D respecti3ely! Complainant narrated that their relationship was

marred by fre4uent 4uarrels because of respondentFs e8tra@marital affairs!$$ #ometime in $&'9, she brought

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


their children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to wor6 because respondent had failed to pro3ide

ade4uate support! 2rom $&' to ;DD$, complainant wor6ed abroad as a domestic helper!

?enying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to li3e separately, complainant

asse3erated that she was 7ust compelled to wor6 abroad to support their children! /hen she returned to the

Philippines, she learned that respondent was li3ing with another woman! Respondent, then bluntly told her, that

he did not want to li3e with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses!

Complainant presented documentary e3idence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray ?arwin, ?arling, and

Christian ?a3e,$; all surnamed ?antes, and the affida3its of respondent and his paramour $9 to pro3e the fact

that respondent sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women! *etters of

complainantFs legitimate children li6ewise support the allegation that respondent is a womani"er!$%

+n an +rder dated April $<, ;DD;, respondent was deemed to ha3e wai3ed his right to cross@e8amine

complainant, after he failed to appear during the scheduled hearings despite due notice! =e, howe3er,

submitted his &o%%ent/+pposition to the &o%plainant0s For%al +ffer of E'idence !ith Motion to Exclude the

E'idence fro% the Records of the Proceedings$> on August $, ;DD;!

#ubse4uently, on May ;&, ;DD9, respondent submitted a Motion to Adopt Alternati'e 1ispute Resolution

Mechanis%! RespondentFs motion was denied because it was filed after the complainant had already presented

her e3idence!$ Respondent was gi3en a final chance to present his e3idence on uly $$, ;DD9! +nstead of

presenting e3idence, respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration !ith Motion to 1is%iss, which was li6ewise

denied for being a prohibited pleading under the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Bar ?iscipline!

Respondent submitted his Position Paper on August %, ;DD9!

+n respondentFs Position Paper ,$< he reiterated the allegations in his Ans!er e8cept that this time, he argued

that in 3iew of the resolution of the complaint for support with alimony pendente lite$' filed against him by the

complainant before the Regional Trial Court RTC of Hue"on City,$& the instant administrati3e case should be

dismissed for lac6 of merit!

1n uly <, ;DD%, the +BP submitted to us through the 1ffice of the Bar Confidant its Report ;D and Resolution o.

2345667586 in3ol3ing CB? Case No! D$@'>$!;$ The +BP recommended that the respondent be suspended

indefinitely from the practice of law!

E8cept for the penalty, we find the abo3e recommendation well@ta6en!

The Code of Professional Responsibility pro3ides5

)Rule $!D$@ A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct!)

)Canon <@ A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and

support the acti3ities of the +ntegrated Bar!)

)Rule <!D9@ A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that ad3ersely reflects on his fitness to practice law,

nor should he, whether in public or pri3ate life, beha3e in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the

legal profession!)

The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or

deceitful conduct! +mmoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless

as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community!;; To be the basis of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


disciplinary action, the lawyerFs conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral! That is, it must be so

corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree ;9 or committed

under such scandalous or re3olting circumstances as to shoc6 the common sense of decency!;%

+n arrientos 's. 1aarol ,;> we ruled that as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral

character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading li3es in accordance with the highest

moral standards of the community! More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not onlyre4uired to refrain from adulterous relationships or 6eeping mistresses but must also so beha3e himself as to

a3oid scandali"ing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards! +f the practice of

law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ran6s should not only

master its tenets and principles but should also, in their li3es, accord continuing fidelity to them! The

re4uirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than

the possession of legal learning!

+t should be noted that the re4uirement of good moral character has three ostensible purposes, namely5 i to

protect the public0 ii to protect the public image of lawyers0 and iii to protect prospecti3e clients! A writer

added a fourth5 to protect errant lawyers from themsel3es!;

*awyers are e8pected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughouttheir legal

career, in order to maintain their good standing in this e8clusi3e and honored fraternity!;< They may be

suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, e3en if it pertains to his pri3ate acti3ities,

as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor!;'

.ndoubtedly, respondentFs acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the

subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition

appropriate sanctions! ComplainantFs testimony, ta6en in con7unction with the documentary e3idence,

sufficiently established respondentFs commission of marital infidelity and immorality! E3idently, respondent had

breached the high and e8acting moral standards set for members of the law profession! =e has made a

moc6ery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity!;&

+n -oledo 's. -oledo,9D we disbarred respondent for abandoning his lawful wife and cohabiting with another

woman who had borne him a child! *i6ewise, in +busan 's. +busan,9$ we ruled that abandoning oneFs wife and

resuming carnal relations with a paramour fall within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and

which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community!

/e reiterate our ruling in &ordo'a 's. &ordo'a,9; that moral delin4uency which affects the fitness of a member

of the bar to continue as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the

community as e8emplified by beha3ior which ma6es a moc6ery of the in3iolable social institution of marriage!

The power to disbar must be e8ercised with great caution, and only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously

affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar!99 /here

a lesser penalty, such as temporary suspension, could accomplish the end desired, disbarment should ne3er

be decreed!9% =owe3er, in the present case, the seriousness of the offense compels the Court to wield its power

to disbar as it appears to be the most appropriate penalty!

7EREORE, in 3iew of the foregoing Atty! Crispin ! ?antes is hereby DIS/!RRED and his name

is ORDERED STRIC:E" from the Roll of Attorneys! *et a copy of this ?ecision be entered in the respondentFs

record as a member of the Bar, and notice of the same be ser3ed on the +ntegrated Bar of the

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Philippines, and on the 1ffice of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country!

SO ORDERED&

epublic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

T=+R? ?+:+#+1N

!&M& "o& SDC;9<;;P ebrar= 4, 199<

SOPI! !$!7I, complainant,

3s!

!S!R M& !$!U!, C(er* o Cort >I, S.ari?a District Court, Marawi City, respondent!

"!R>!S!, C.J.:

#ophia Alawi was and presumably still is a sales representati3e or coordinator of E!B! :illarosa I Partners

Co!, *td! of ?a3ao City, a real estate and housing company! Ashari M! Alauya is the incumbent e8ecuti3e cler6

of court of the %th udicial #haria ?istrict in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends!

+t appears that through Alawis agency, a contract was e8ecuted for the purchase on installments by Alauya of

one of the housing units belonging to the abo3e mentioned firm hereafter, simply :illarosa I Co!0 and in

connection therewith, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National =ome Mortgage 2inance

Corporation N=M2C!

Not long afterwards, or more precisely on ?ecember $>, $&&>, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of

:illarosa I Co! ad3ising of the termination of his contract with the company! =e wrote5

! ! + am formally and officially withdrawing from and notifying you of my intent to terminate the

ContractJAgreement entered into between me and your company, as represented by your

#ales AgentJCoordinator, #1P=+A A*A/+, of your companys branch office here in Cagayan

de 1ro City, on the grounds that my consent was 3itiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit,

fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the aforesaid sales agent which made said

contract 3oid ab initio! #aid sales agent acting in bad faith perpetrated such illegal and

unauthori"ed acts which made said contract an 1nerous Contract pre7udicial to my rights and

interests! =e then proceeded to e8pound in considerable detail and 4uite acerbic language onthe )grounds which could e3idence the bad faith! deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty

and abuse of confidence by the unscrupulous sales agent ! ! !0) and closed with the plea that

:illarosa I Co! )agree for the mutual rescission of our contract, e3en as + inform you that +

categorically state on record that + am terminating the contract ! ! ! + hope + do not ha3e to

resort to any legal action before said onerous and manipulated contract against my interest be

annulled! + was actually fooled by your sales agent, hence the need to annul the contro3ersial

contract!)

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the :ice@President of :illarosa I Co! at #an Pedro, usa,

Cagayan de 1ro City! The en3elope containing it, and which actually went through the post,

bore no stamps! +nstead at the right hand corner abo3e the description of the addressee, the

words, )Free Postage P1 59 ,) had been typed!

1n the same date, ?ecember $>, $&&>, Alauya also wrote to Mr! 2ermin T! Ar"aga, :ice@

President, Credit I Collection roup of the National =ome Mortgage 2inance CorporationN=M2C at #alcedo :illage, Ma6ati City, repudiating as fraudulent and 3oid his contract with

:illarosa I Co!0 and as6ing for cancellation of his housing loan in connection therewith, which

was payable from salary deductions at the rate of P%,99'!DD a month! Among other things, he

said5

! ! ! Through this written notice, + am terminating, as + hereby annul, cancel,

rescind and 3oided, the )manipulated contract) entered into between me and

the E!B! :illarosa I Partner Co!, *td!, as represented by its sales

agentJcoordinator, #1P=+A A*A/+, who maliciously and fraudulently

manipulated said contract and unlawfully secured and pursued the housing

loan without my authority and against my will! Thus, the contract itself is

deemed to be 3oid ab initio in 3iew of the attending circumstances, that myconsent was 3itiated by misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty, and

abuse of confidence0 and that there was no meeting of the minds between

me and the swindling sales agent who concealed the real facts from me!

And, as in his letter to :illarosa I Co!, he narrated in some detail what he too6 to be the anomalous

actuations of #ophia Alawi!

Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr! Ar"aga of the N=M2C, dated 2ebruary ;$, $&&, April $>, $&&, and

May 9, $&&, in all of which, for the same reasons already cited, he insisted on the cancellation of his housing

loan and discontinuance of deductions from his salary on account thereof! a =e also wrote on anuary $', $&& to Ms!

Cora"on M! 1rdoKe", =ead of the 2iscal Management I Budget 1ffice, and to the Chief, 2inance ?i3ision, both of this Court, to stop

deductions from his salary in relation to the loan in 4uestion, again asserting the anomalous manner by which he was allegedly duped intoentering into the contracts by )the scheming sales agent!) b

The upshot was that in May, $&&, the N=M2C wrote to the #upreme Court re4uesting it to stop deductions on

Alauyas .=*P loan )effecti3e May $&&!) and began negotiating with :illarosa I Co! ) for the buy@bac6 of ! ! !

Alauyas mortgage! and ! ! the refund of ! ! his payments!) c

1n learning of Alauyas letter to :illarosa I Co! of ?ecember $>, $&&>, #ophia Alawi filed with this Court a

3erified complaint dated anuary ;>, $&& ( to which she appended a copy of the letter, and of the abo3e

mentioned en3elope bearing the typewritten words, )Free Postage P1 59 !) 1 +n that complaint, she accused

Alauya of5

$! )+mputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifestignorance and e3ident bad faith0)

;! )Causing undue in7ury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation0)

9! ).nauthori"ed en7oyment of the pri3ilege of free postage ! ! !0) and

%! .surpation of the title of )attorney,) which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may

properly use!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#he deplored Alauyas references to her as )unscrupulous swindler, forger, manipulator, etc!) without )e3en a

bit of e3idence to cloth sic his allegations with the essence of truth,) denouncing his imputations as

irresponsible, )all concoctions, lies, baseless and coupled with manifest ignorance and e3ident bad faith,) and

asserting that all her dealings with Alauya had been regular and completely transparent! #he closed with the

plea that Alauya )be dismissed from the senice, or be appropriately desciplined sic ! ! !)

The Court resol3ed to order Alauya to comment on the complaint, Conformably with established usagethatnotices of resolutions emanate from the corresponding 1ffice of the Cler6 of Court, the notice of

resolution in this case was signed by Atty! Alfredo P! Marasigan, Assistant ?i3ision Cler6 of Court!

Alauya first submitted a )Preliminary Comment) 3 in which he 4uestioned the authority of Atty! Marasigan to

re4uire an e8planation of him, this power pertaining, according to him, not to )a mere Asst! ?i3! Cler6 of

Court in3estigating an E8ecuti3e Cler6 of Court!) but only to the ?istrict udge, the Court Administrator or

the Chief ustice, and 3oiced the suspicion that the Resolution was the result of a )strong lin6) between

Ms! Alawi and Atty! Marasigans office! =e also a3erred that the complaint had no factual basis0 Alawi was

en3ious of him for being not only )the E8ecuti3e Cler6 of Court and e8@officio Pro3incial #heriff and ?istrict

Registrar!) but also )a scion of a Ro"al Fa%il" ! ! !) 4

+n a subse4uent letter to Atty! Marasigan, but this time in much less aggressi3e, e3en obse4uious

tones, @ Alauya re4uested the former to gi3e him a copy of the complaint in order that he might comment

thereon! 2 =e stated that his acts as cler6 of court were done in good faith and within the confines of the

law0 and that #ophia Alawi, as sales agent of :illarosa I Co! had, by falsifying his signature, fraudulently

bound him to a housing loan contract entailing monthly deductions of P%,999!$D from his salary!

And in his comment thereafter submitted under date of une >, $&&, Alauya contended that it was he who had

suffered )undue in7ury, mental anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold financial suffering,)

considering that in si8 months, a total of P;,D;'!D had been deducted from his salary! < =e declared that

there was no basis for the complaint0 in communicating with :illarosa I Co! he had merely acted in

defense of his rights! =e denied any abuse of the fran6ing pri3ilege, saying that he ga3e P;D!DD plus

transportation fare to a subordinate whom he entrusted with the mailing of certain letters0 that the words5)Free Postage P1 59,) were typewritten on the en3elope by some other person, an a3erment

corroborated by the affida3it of Absamen C! ?omocao, Cler6 +: subscribed and sworn to before

respondent himself, and attached to the comment as Anne8 0 8 and as far as he 6new, his subordinate

mailed the letters with the use of the money he had gi3en for postage, and if those letters were indeed

mi8ed with the official mail of the court, this had occurred inad3ertently and because of an honest

mista6e! 9

Alauya 7ustified his use of the title, )attorney,) by the assertion that it is )le8ically synonymous) with

)Counsellors@at@law!) a title to which #haria lawyers ha3e a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the title of

)attorney) because )counsellor) is often mista6en for )councilor,) ):onsehal ) or the Maranao term )consial ,)

connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor! /ithal, he does not consider himself a lawyer!

=e pleads for the Courts compassion, alleging that what he did )is e8pected of any man unduly pre7udiced and

in7ured!) 15 =e claims he was manipulated into reposing his trust in Alawi, a classmate and friend! 11 =e was

induced to sign a blan6 contract on Alawis assurance that she would show the completed document to

him later for correction, but she had since a3oided him0 despite )numerous letters and follow@ups) he still

does not 6now where the property ( sub7ect of his supposed agreement with Alawis principal, :illarosa I

Co! ( is situated0 1 =e says Alawi somehow got his #+# policy from his wife, and although she

promised to return it the ne8t day, she did not do so until after se3eral months! =e also claims that in

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


connection with his contract with :illarosa I Co!, Alawi forged his signature on such pertinent documents

as those regarding the down payment, clearance, lay@out, receipt of the 6ey of the house, salary

deduction, none of which he e3er saw! 13

A3erring in fine that his acts in 4uestion were done without malice, Alauya prays for the dismissal of the

complaint for lac6 of merit, it consisting of )fallacious, malicious and baseless allegations!) and complainant

Alawi ha3ing come to the Court with unclean hands, her complicity in the fraudulent housing loan being

apparent and demonstrable!

+t may be mentioned that in contrast to his two ; letters to Assistant Cler6 of Court Marasigan dated April $&,

$&& and April ;;, $&&, and his two ; earlier letters both dated ?ecember $>, $&& ( all of which he signed

as ) Att" ! Ashary M! Alauya) ( in his Comment of une >, $&&, he does not use the title but refers to himself

as )1A-; A#=ARL M! A*A.LA!)

The Court referred the case to the 1ffice of the Court Administrator for e3aluation, report and

recommendation!14

The first accusation against Alauya is that in his aforesaid letters, he made )malicious and libelous charges

against Alawi with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and e3ident bad faith, resulting in )undue

in7ury to her and blemishing her honor and established reputation!) +n those letters, Alauya had written inter

alia that5

$ Alawi obtained his consent to the contracts in 4uestion )by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty

and abuse of confidence0)

; Alawi acted in bad faith and perpetrated ! ! ! illegal and unauthori"ed acts ! ! ! pre7udicial to ! ! his rights and

interests0)

9 Alawi was an )unscrupulous and )swindling) sales agent) who had fooled him by )deceit, fraud,

misrepresentation, dishonesty and abuse of confidence0) and

% Alawi had maliciously and fraudulently manipulated the contract with :illarosa I Co!, and unlawfully secured

and pursued the housing loan without ! ! his authority and against ! ! his will,) and )concealed the real

facts ! ! !)

Alauyas defense essentially is that in ma6ing these statements, he was merely acting in defense of his rights,

and doing only what )is e8pected of any man unduly pre7udiced and in7ured,) who had suffered )mental

anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and untold financial suffering, considering that in si8 months, a

total of P;,D;'!D had been deducted from his salary! 1@

The Code of Conduct and Ethical #tandards for Public 1fficials and Employees RA <$9 inter alia enunciates

the #tate policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public ser3ice!12

#ection% of the Code commands that )public officials and employees ! ! at all times respect the rights of others,

and ! ! refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order,

public safety and public interest!) 1<More than once has this Court emphasi"ed that )the conduct and

beha3ior of e3ery official and employee of an agency in3ol3ed in the administration of 7ustice, from the

presiding 7udge to the most 7unior cler6, should be circumscribed with the hea3y burden of responsibility!

Their conduct must at all times be characteri"ed by, among others, strict propriety and decorum so as to

earn and 6eep the respect of the public for the 7udiciary!) 18

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Now, it does not appear to the Court consistent with good morals, good customs or public policy, or respect for

the rights of others, to couch denunciations of acts belie3ed ( howe3er sincerely ( to be deceitful, fraudulent

or malicious, in e8cessi3ely intemperate, insulting or 3irulent language! Alauya is e3idently con3inced that he

has a right of action against #ophia Alawi! The law re4uires that he e8ercise that right with propriety, without

malice or 3indicti3eness, or undue harm to anyone0 in a manner consistent with good morals, good customs,

public policy, public order, supra0 or otherwise stated, that he )act with 7ustice, gi3e e3eryone his due, and

obser3e honesty and goodfaith!) 19 Righteous indignation, or 3indication of right cannot 7ustify resort to 3ituperati3e language, or

downright name@calling! As a member of the #haria Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is sub7ect to a

standard of conduct more stringent than for most other go3ernment wor6ers! As a man of the law, he may

not use language which is abusi3e, offensi3e, scandalous, menacing, or otherwise improper! 5 As a

7udicial employee, it is e8pected that he accord respect for the person and the rights of others at all times,

and that his e3ery act and word should be characteri"ed by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity! =is

radical de3iation from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be e8cused, by his

strongly held con3iction that he had been grie3ously wronged!

As regards Alauyas use of the title of )Attorney,) this Court has already had occasion to declare that persons

who pass the #haria Bar are not full@fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law

before #haria courts! 1 /hile one who has been admitted to the #haria Bar, and one who has been

admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered )counsellors,) in the sense that they gi3e counsel

or ad3ice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an )attorney!) The title of )attorney) is reser3ed to

those who, ha3ing obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully ta6en the Bar

E8aminations, ha3e been admitted to the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in

good standing0 and it is they only who are authori"ed to practice law in this 7urisdiction!

Alauya says he does not wish to use the title, )counsellor) or )counsellor@at@law, ) because in his region, there

are pe7orati3e connotations to the term, or it is confusingly similar to that gi3en to local legislators! The

ratiocination, 3alid or not, is of no moment! =is disinclination to use the title of )counsellor) does not warrant his

use of the title of attorney!

2inally, respecting Alauyas alleged unauthori"ed use of the fran6ing pri3ilege, the record contains no

e3idence ade4uately establishing the accusation!

/=ERE21RE, respondent Ashari M! Alauya is hereby REPR+MAN?E? for the use of e8cessi3ely intemperate,

insulting or 3irulent language, i !e!, language unbecoming a 7udicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorney0

and he is warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more

se3erely!

#1 1R?ERE?!

1a'ide, *r., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, *r., **., concur.

7/21/2019 cases 22-36



SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

#&R& "o& $;32855 October 1, 19<4

%OR#E MO"TECI$$O an) AUIRICO DE$ M!R, petitioners,

3s!

R!"CISCO M& #IC!, M!#"O S& #!TM!IT!", %OSE "& $EUTERIO, an) R!MO" #& #!>IO$!, %sticeso t.e Cort o !ea(s, reson)ents& In Re Airico )e( Mar, or Disci(inar= action as member o t.eP.i(iine /ar, respondent!

ES#UERR!, J.: p

Petitioner Atty! Huirico del Mar of Cebu City in ! R! No! *@9'DD, and as respondent in contempt proceedings

both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, 3irtually focused the limelight on himself and relegated to

insignificance the limelight on himself and relegated to insignificance the principal issue raised in the petition

for certiorari to re3iew the entitled )2rancisco M! ica 3s! =on! #antiago 1! TaKada, et al) which was denied due

course by this Courts resolution dated May $%, $&<9, for lac6 of merit!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Although the petition for certiorari has been denied, it becomes imperati3ely necessary to elucidate upon the

antecedents of this case e3en if 1ur only 7ustification in so doing is to see6 a reason or moti3e for the acts of

contempt perpetrated by respondent Huirico del Mar that might ser3e to lighten the enormity of his wrongdoing

as a member of the Bar!

As a result of an alleged slander committed by orge Montecillo on 2rancisco M! ica the former allegedly

calling the latter )stupid) or a )fool, Mr! ica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation against MontecilloCriminal Case No! R@;'<'; in Branch :++ of the Cebu City Court and a case for damages arising from the

same incident Ci3il Case No! R@$9D<> in Branch :+ of the Cebu City Court! Montecillo was ac4uitted in

Criminal Case No! R@;'<';, and in Ci3il Case No! R@$9D<>, the Cebu City Court found that Montecillo did not

call ica )stupid)! 2inding the counter@claim of Montecillo meritorious, the City Court rendered 7udgment against

ica for him to pay Montecillo fi3e hundred pesos as moral damages, two hundred pesos as compensatory

damages and three hundred pesos as attorneys fees, plus costs!

2rancisco ica appealed from the decision of the City Court of Cebu in Ci3il Case No! R@$9D<> to the Court of

2irst +nstance of Cebu presided by =on! #antiago 1! TaKada but the Court of 2irst +nstance upheld the decision

of the City Court! The case was then ele3ated to the Court of Appeals by petition for re3iew by petitioner

2rancisco M! ica and it was doc6eted therein as CA@!R! No! %>D%@R!

The 2ourth ?i3ision of the Court of Appeals in a decision penned by the =on! Magno #! atmaitan and

concurred in by Associate ustices ose N! *euterio and Ramon ! a3iola, r! promulgated on #ept! ;<,

$&<;, re3ersed the decision of the Court of 2irst +nstance of Cebu0 ruled in fa3or of petitioner ica on the

ground that the preponderance of e3idence fa3ored petitioner 2rancisco M! ica on the principle that positi3e

must pre3ail o3er the negati3e e3idence, and that )some words must ha3e come from Montecillos lips that

were insulting to ica)! The appellate court concluded that its decision is a 3indication of ica and instead,

awarded him fi3e hundred pesos as damages!

+t is from this point that trouble began for respondent Atty! Huirico del Mar when, as counsel for Montecillo, he

mo3ed for a reconsideration of the Appellate Courts decision with a 3eiled threat by mentioning the pro3isions

of the Re3ised Penal Code on )-nowingly rendering un7ust 7udgment) and )7udgment rendered through

negligence), and the innuendo that the Court of Appeals allowed itself to be decei3ed! /hen the AppellateCourt denied the motion for reconsideration in its Resolution of 1ctober ;%, $&<;, it obser3ed that the

terminology of the motion insinuated that the Appellate Court rendered an un7ust 7udgment, that it abetted a

falsification and it permitted itself to be decei3ed! +t admonished Atty! del Mar to remember that threats and

abusi3e language cannot compel any court of 7ustice to grant reconsideration! Respondent del Mar persisted

and in his second motion for reconsideration, filed without lea3e of court, made another threat by stating that

)with almost all penal 3iolations placed under the 7urisdiction of the President of the Philippines, particularly

Articles $<$, ;D% and ;D> of the Re3ised Penal Code, as Commander in Chief of the A2P, by 3irtue of the

proclamation of martial law, the ne8t appeal that will he interposed, will be to =is E8cellency, the President of

the Philippines!)

The Appellate Court in its resolution of No3! ;<, $&<;, noticed that notwithstanding its admonition in its

resolution of 1ct! ;%, $&<;, for Atty! del Mar to refrain from abusi3e language and threats, he reiterated histhreats, and that the Appellate Court, impelled to assert its authority, ordered respondent del Mar to e8plain

within $D days and to appear on anuary $D, $&<9 why he should not be punished for contempt of court!

1n ?ecember >, $&<;, respondent del Mar made a written e8planation wherein he said that the Appellate Court

could not be threatened and he was not ma6ing any threat but only informing the Appellate Court of the course

of action he would follow! 1n the same date, respondent sent a letter to the ustices of the %th ?i3ision of the

Court of Appeals informing them that he sent a letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy

thereof, and re4uesting the ustices to ta6e into consideration the contents of said letter during the hearing of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the case scheduled for anuary $D, $&<9! Not content with that mo3e, on ?ecember ', $&<;, respondent sent

another letter to the same ustices of the Court of Appeals wherein he reminded them of a ci3il case he

instituted against ustices of the #upreme Court for damages in the amount of P;DD,DDD for a decision

rendered not in accordance with law and 7ustice, stating that he would not li6e to do it again but would do so if

pro3o6ed! /e pause here to obser3e that respondent del Mar seems to be of that frame of mind whereby he

considers as in accordance with law and 7ustice whate3er he belie3es to be right in his own opinion and as

contrary to law and 7ustice whate3er does not accord with his 3iews! +n other words, he would li6e to assumethe role of this Court, personally and indi3idually, in the interpretation and construction of the laws, e3aluation of

e3idence and determination of what is in accordance with law and 7ustice!

The documented incidents as narrated in the Appellate Courts Resolution of March >, $&<9, cannot more

elo4uently depict the 3ery manifest and repeated threats of respondent del Mar to bludgeon the ustices of the

2ourth ?a3ison into reconsidering its decision which happened to be ad3erse to respondents client!

Respondent del Mar, instead of presenting lucid and forceful arguments on the merits of his plea for a

reconsideration to con3ince the ustices of the 2ourth ?i3ision of the alleged error in their decision, resorted to

innuendos and 3eiled threats, e3en casting downright aspersion on the ustices concerned by insinuating that

for their decision they could be criminally and ci3illy liable for 6nowingly rendering un7ust 7udgment, or doing it

through ignorance!

/e 4uote with appro3al this portion of the Appellate Courts Resolution March >, $&<95

A 7ust man can ne3er be threatened, p! $%>, rollo, is not at all true0 any man, 7ust or un7ust,

can be threatened0 if he is un7ust, he will succumb, if he is 7ust, he will not, but the offense is

committed, whether the threats do or do not succeed! As to his respondent del Mars

reference to the New #ociety, p! $>D, in his letter to his E8cellency, complaining against those

7ustices, let it be said that precisely it was under the 2ormer #ociety that there had been so

much disrespect for the constituted authorities, there was abuse, worse than abuse, there was

arrogant abuse, of the so@called ci3il liberties, against the authorities, including the courts, not

e8cluding e3en the President0 it is this anarchy that is the program to cure in the New!

This Resolution of the Appellate Court of March >, $&<9, fittingly concluded that )counsel del Mar is found guiltyof contempt and condemned to pay a fine of P;DD!DD and ordered suspended from the practice of law and

pursuant to #ec! & of Rule $9&, let certified copies of these papers be ele3ated to the =onorable #upreme

Court)! /e upheld the Court of Appeals and ga3e full force and effect to this order of suspension from the

practice of law when in 1ur resolution dated No3! $&, $&<9, the udicial Consultant of this Court was directed to

circulari"e all courts about the order of the Court of Appeals suspending Atty! Huirico del Mar from the practice

of law!

Not satisfied with the wrong that he had already done against Associate ustices Magno #! atmaitan, ose N!

*euterio and Ramon a3iola, r!, respondent del Mar sued the three ustices for damages in Ci3il Case No! R@

$9;<< of the Court of 2irst +nstance of Cebu, trying to hold them liable for their decision in CA@!R! No! %>D%@

R0 that the case for damages R@$9;<<was terminated by compromise agreement after Mr! del Mar himself

mo3ed for the dismissal of his complaint apologi"ed to the Court of Appeals and the ustices concerned, andagreed to pay nominal moral damages in fa3or of the defendants@7ustices! This is the undeniable indication that

respondent del Mar did not only threaten the three ustices of the Appellate Court but he actually carried out his

threat, although he did not succeed in ma6ing them change their minds in the case they decided in accordance

with the e8ercise of their 7udicial discretion emanating from pure con3iction!

To add insult to in7ury, respondent del Mar had the temerity to file his motion on 1ctober $D, $&<9, before .s,

as6ing that his suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court of Appeals be ignored because of the

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


amicable settlement reached in Ci3il Case No! R@$9;<< of the Court of 2irst +nstance of Cebu which was the

action for damages filed against the three ustices of the Appellate Court!

Respondent del Mars ire at the Appellate Court, fanned by the wind of frustration, turned against .s when /e

denied on May $%, $&<9, his petition for re3iew on certiorari of the decision of the Appellate Court, ! R! No! *@

9'DD, for on May ;>, $&<9, he filed his motion for reconsideration and wrote a letter addressed to the Cler6 of

this Court re4uesting the names of the ustices of this Court who supported the resolution denying his petition,together with the names of the ustices fa3oring his motion for reconsideration! This motion for reconsideration

/e denied for lac6 of merit in 1ur resolution dated une $>, $&<9! =e, then, filed a manifestation dated uly $,

$&<9, before .s, stating bra"enly, among other things, )+ can at this time re3eal to you that, had your Cler6 of

Court furnished me with certified true copies of the last two Resolutions of the #upreme Court confirming the

decision of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled 2rancisco M! ica 3s! orge Montecillo, 4 !ould ha'e filed

against the *ustices supporting the sa%e, ci'il and cri%inal suit as 4 did to the *ustices of the &ourt of Appeals

!ho, re!arding the abhorent falsification co%%itted b" Mr. <ica, re3ersed for him the decisions of the City

Court and the Court of 2irst +nstance of Cebu, not !ith a 'ie! to obtaining a fa'orable =udg%ent therein but for

the purpose of exposing to the people the corroding e'ils extant in our <o'ern%ent , so that they may well 6now

them and !or: for their exter%ination) Emphasis supplied! +n one breath and in a language certainly not

complimentary to the Appellate Court and to .s, respondent del Mar again made his 3eiled threat of retribution

aimed at the Appellate Court and at .s for 1ur 7udicial acts in CA@! R! No! %>D%@R and ! R! No! *@9'DD!

1ur immediate reaction to this manifestation, dictated by the impulse of placing on a pedestal beyond suspicion

the integrity and honor of this Court and that of any of our other courts of 7ustice, was to re4uire by Resolution

of uly $, $&<9, respondent del Mar to show cause why disciplinary action should not be ta6en against him for

the contemptuous statements contained in his manifestation!

At this 7uncture, /e pause to ree8amine the act of the Appellate Court in CA@! R! No! %>D%@R and our own in

! R! No! *@9'DD to determine what error we might ha3e committed to generate such a 3engeful wrath of

respondent del Mar which dro3e him to ma6e his contemptuous statements!

The crucial issue in the case of oral defamation filed by 2rancisco M! ica against orge Montecillo is as to

what was the statement really uttered by Montecillo on the occasion in 4uestion ( )binuang man gud na) Thatact is senseless or done without thin6ing or )buang man gud na siya) =e is foolish or stupid! +f the statement

uttered was the former, Montecillo should be e8onerated0 if the latter, he would be liable! The Appellate Court

on e3aluating the e3idence ruled that the preponderance thereof fa3ored ica )on the principle that the positi3e

e3idence must pre3ail o3er the negati3e) and, therefore, what was really uttered by Montecillo on that occasion

was )buang man gud na siya) =e is foolish or stupid, thus ma6ing him liable for oral defamation! /hen /e

denied in ! R! No! *@9'DD the petition for re3iew on certiorari of the Appellate Courts decision in CA@! R!

No! %>D%@R, /e did so because /e could find no reason for disturbing the Appellate Courts finding and

conclusion on the aforementioned lone 4uestion of fact which would warrant o3erturning its decision!

1n uly $9, $&<9, 1ur resolution of May $%, $&<9, denying the petition for re3iew on certiorari of the decision of

the Appellate Court in CA@! R! No! %>D%@R, became final and e8ecutory and the Court of Appeals was so

informed!

To 1ur resolution of uly $, $&<9, re4uiring respondent del Mar to show cause why he should not be

disciplined for his statements contained in his manifestation of uly $, $&<9, he submitted an e8planation dated

August $, $&<9, wherein he stated that )!!!, he is attaching hereto the criminal case he filed with the President

of the Philippines copy mar6ed as Anne8 )A) and the ci3il case he instituted in the Court of 2irst +nstance of

Cebu copy mar6ed as Anne8 )B) against ustices Magno #! atmaitan, ose N! *euterio and Ramon !

a3iola, r!, which embody the corroding e3ils he complained of as e8tant in the o3ernment needing

correction! >e !ould ha'e follo!ed suit !ere it not for the fact that he is fir%l" con'inced that hu%an efforts in

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


this direction !ill be fruitless! As manifested, he, therefore, decided to retire from a life of militancy to a life of

seclusion lea3ing to od the filling@up of human deficiencies) Emphasis supplied!

This so@called e8planation is more, in its tenor, of a defiant 7ustification of his contemptuous statements

contained in the manifestation of uly $, $&<9! +ts contents re3eal a continued 3eiled threat against the ustices

of this Court who 3oted to deny del Mars petition for re3iew on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Court

Appeals in CA@ R! No! %>D%@R!

1ur resolution of #eptember %, $&<9, re4uired respondent Atty! Huirico del Mar to appear personally at the

hearing of his e8planation on No3ember >, $&<9! 1n #eptember ;, $&<9, respondent filed an additional

e8planation with this Court, wherein he stated, among other things5 )raft, corruption and in7ustice are rampant

in and outside of the o3ernment! +t is this state of things that con3inced me that all human efforts to correct

andJor reform the said e3ils will be fruitless and, as stated in my manifestation to you, + ha3e already decided to

retire from a life of militancy to a life of seclusion, lea3ing to od the filling@up of human deficiencies!)

Again /e noticed that the tenor of this additional e8planation is a toned@down 7ustificationas compared to his

e8planation of August $, $&<9 of his pre3ious contemptuous statements without e3en a hint of apology or

regret! Respondent is utili"ing what e8ists in his mind as state of graft, corruption and in7ustice allegedly

rampant in and outside of the go3ernment as 7ustification for his contemptuous statements! +n other words, healready assumed by his own contemptuous utterances that because there is an alleged e8istence of rampant

corruption, graft, and in7ustice in and out of the go3ernment, /e, by 1ur act in ! R! No! *@9'DD, are among

the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing in7ustice! /e are at a complete loss to follow

respondent del Mars logic and /e certainly should, with understanding condescension, commiserate in the

pitiable state of mind of a brother in the legal profession who seems to ha3e his reasoning and sense of

proportion blurred or warped by an all@consuming obsession emanating from a one@trac6 mind that only his

3iews are absolutely correct and those of others are all wrong!

/hen this Court in the resolution dated No3ember $&, $&<9, directed the udicial Consultant to circulari"e to all

courts concerning the order of the Court of Appeals suspending Atty! Huirico del Mar from the practice of law,

respondent del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration on ?ecember $;, $&<9, re4uesting .s to reconsider said

directi3e! +n 1ur resolution dated ?ecember $<, $&<9, respondent del Mar, after he had been interpellated bythe Court, was gi3en a period of fi3e days to submit a memorandum in support of his e8planation! +n 3iew of

respondents manifestation that there was no need for further in3estigation of the facts in3ol3ed, in accordance

with #ection ;& of Rule $9', /e resol3ed that the matter be deemed submitted for decision!

+n the memorandum entitled )E8planation) dated ?ecember ;D, $&<9, respondent del Mar stated that he

suffered repeated stro6es of high blood pressure which rendered him di""y and unstable mentally and

physically0 that his sight is blurred and his reasoning is faulty0 he easily forgets things and cannot readily

correlate them0 that for any and all mista6es he might ha3e committed he as6ed for forgi3eness0 he reiterated

that )blunders) were committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision and that the ustices thereof 6nowingly

rendered the same in 3iolation of Article ;D% of the Penal Code0 he persisted in his 3iew that the Court of

Appeals committed an error in its decision0 7ustified his act of in3o6ing Article ;D% of the Penal Code in trying to

ma6e the Appellate ustices liable0 that he was high in his academic and scholastic standing during his schooldays0 that )with all the confusion pre3ailing nowadays, the undersigned has decided for reasons of sic6ness

and old age to retire from the practice of law! =e hopes and e8pects that, with the appro3al thereof by the

#upreme Court, he could ha3e himself released from the obligation he has contracted with his clients as

regards all his pending cases!)

+t is 1ur obser3ation that the tenor of this e8planation although pleading mental and physical ailment as a

mitigation of the contemptuous acts, is still that of arrogant 7ustification for respondents pre3ious statements!

/e 4uote5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The undersigned was as6ed if he had not filed against the ustices of the #upreme Court a

case for damages against them! =e answered in the affirmati3e, but the case was dismissed

by udge :illasor, of the Court of 2irst +nstance of Cebu, because of an American ruling that a

7ustice of the #upreme Court of the Philippines cannot be ci3illy held liable! The ruling cited

was rendered during the American regime in the Philippines which was still sub7ect to the

7urisdiction of the American laws! But the Philippines is now independent and Article ;D% of the

Penal Code still remains incorporated therein for obser3ance and fulfillment! .p to now, thereis not yet any definite ruling of the #upreme Court thereon

/hile still persistently 7ustifying his contemptuous statements and at the same time pleading that his physical

and mental ailment be considered so that /e may forgi3e respondent del Mar he shrewdly stated at the end of

his e8planation that he has decided for reasons of sic6ness and old age to retire from the practice of law, in

practical anticipation of whate3er penalty /e may decide to impose on him and thus ma6ing it appear that he

has 3oluntarily done so with honor and in complete e3asion of whate3er this Court may decide to do in this

case!

/ith full reali"ation that a practicing lawyer and officer of the court facing contempt proceedings cannot 7ust be

allowed to 3oluntarily retire from the practice of law, an act which would negate the inherent power of the court

to punish him for contempt in defense of its integrity and honor, /e resol3e, by resolution of anuary $D, $&<%,to deny said prayer of Atty! del Mar without pre7udice to his ma6ing arrangement directly with his clients!

To aged brethren of the bar it may appear belated to remind them that second only to the duty of maintaining

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the

Philippines, is the duty of all attorneys to obser3e and maintain the respect due to the courts of 7ustice and

7udicial officers #ec! ;D b Rule $9', Rules of Court! But /e do remind them of said duty to emphasi"e to

their younger brethren its paramount importance! A lawyer must always remember that he is an officer of the

court e8ercising a high pri3ilege and ser3ing in the noble mission of administering 7ustice!

+t is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude People 3s! Carillo, << Phil! ><;!

As an officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes fidelity,

according to the oath he has ta6en! Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our democratic institutionswhich, without such respect, would be resting on a 3ery sha6y foundation! +n re #otto '; Phil! >&>!

As /e stated before5

/e concede that a lawyer may thin6 highly of his intellectual endowment! That is his pri3ilege!

And, he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others lac6 of it! This is his misfortune! #ome

such frame of mind, howe3er, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attac6

a courts decision in words calculated to 7ettison the time@honored aphorism that courts are the

temples of right! =e should gi3e due allowance to the fact that 7udges are but men0 and men

are encompassed by error, fettered by fallibility!

!!! To be sure, lawyers may come up with 3arious methods, perhaps much more effecti3e, in

calling the Courts attention to the issues in3ol3ed! The language 3ehicle does not run short of

e8pressions, emphatic but respectful, con3incing but not derogatory, illuminating but not

offensi3e Rheem of the Philippines 3s! 2errer ! R! No! *@;;&<&, une ;, $&<0 ;D #CRA

%%$, %%%@%%>

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court

or a 7udge acting 7udicially! +t is an act obstructing the administration of 7ustice which tends to bring the court

into disrepute or disrespect $< C! ! #! <!

/e ha3e held that statements contained in a motion to dis4ualify a 7udge, imputing to the latter conspiracy or

conni3ance with the prosecutors or concocting a plan with a 3iew to securing the con3iction of the accused, and

implicating said 7udge in a supposed attempt to e8tort money from the accused on a promise or assurance ofthe latters ac4uittal, all without basis, were highly derogatory and ser3e nothing but to discredit the 7udge

presiding the court in an attempt to secure his dis4ualification! #tatements of that nature ha3e no place in a

court pleading and if uttered by a member of the bar, constitute a serious disrespect! /e said5

As an officer of the court, it is his s!orn and %oral dut" to help build and not

destro" unnecessarilythe high estee% and regard to!ards the court so essential to the proper

ad%inistration of =usticeEmphasis supplied! People 3s! Carillo, %9 1!! No! $;, p! >D;$0 ?e

oya et al 3s! C! 2! +! of Ri"al and Rillora"a >; D! ! $>D!

As already stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA@! R! No! %>D%@R was based on its e3aluation of

the e3idence on only one specific issue! /e in turn denied in ! R! No! *@9'DD the petition for re3iew

oncertiorari of the decision because /e found no reason for disturbing the appellate courts finding andconclusion! +n both instances, both the Court of Appeals and this Court e8ercised 7udicial discretion in a case

under their respecti3e 7urisdiction! The intemperate and imprudent act of respondent del Mar in resorting to

3eiled threats to ma6e both Courts reconsider their respecti3e stand in the decision and the resolution that

spelled disaster for his client cannot be anything but pure contumely for said tribunals!

+t is manifest that respondent del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the

flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by

claiming that they 6nowingly rendered un7ust 7udgment! +n short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and

malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client!

/e note with wonder and ama"ement the bra"en effrontery of respondent in assuming that his personal

6nowledge of the law and his concept of 7ustice are superior to that of both the #upreme Court and the Court of

Appeals! =is pretense cannot but tend to erode the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts of 7ustice and in

the administration of 7ustice! =e repeatedly in3o6ed his supposed 4uest for law and 7ustice as 7ustification for

his contemptuous statements without reali"ing that, in see6ing both abstract elusi3e terms, he is merely

pursuing his own personal concept of law and 7ustice! =e seems not to comprehend that what to him may be

lawful or 7ust may not be so in the minds of others! =e could not accept that what to him may appear to be right

or correct may be wrong or erroneous from the 3iewpoint of another! /e understand that respondents mind

del3es into the absolute without considering the uni3ersal law of change! +t is with deep concern that /e 3iew

such a state of mind of a practicing lawyer since what /e e8pect as a paramount 4ualification for those in the

practice of law is broadmindedness and tolerance, coupled with 6een perception and a sound sense of

proportion in e3aluating e3ents and circumstances!

2or a lawyer in the twilight of his life, with supposed physical and mental ailments at that, who dares tochallenge the integrity and honor of both the #upreme Court and Court of Appeals, /e ha3e nothing but

commiseration and sympathy for his choosing to close the boo6 of his long years of law practice not by

3oluntary retirement with honor but in disciplinary action with ignominy and dishonor! To those who are in the

practice of law and those who in the future will choose to enter this profession, /e wish to point to this case as

a reminder for them to imprint in their hearts and minds that an attorney owes it to himself to respect the courts

of 7ustice and its officers as a fealty for the stability of our democratic institutions!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/=ERE21RE, the resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA@!R! No! %>D%@R, dated March >, $&<9,

suspending Atty! Huirico del Mar from the practice of law, as implemented by 1ur resolution of No3ember $&,

$&<9, is hereby affirmed!

Respondent Atty! Huirico del Mar for his misconduct towards the #upreme Court, shall be, as he is hereby,

suspended from the practice of law until further orders of this Court, such suspension to ta6e effect

immediately! +n re Almacen, No! *@;<>%, 2eb! $', $&<D, 9$ #CRA, p! >;!

The udicial Consultant of this Court is directed to circulari"e all courts and the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines

regarding the indefinite suspension of Atty! Huirico del Mar from the practice of law!

#1 1R?ERE?!

Ma:alintal, &.*., &astro, -eehan:ee, arredo, Ma:asiar, Antonio, Fernandez, Mu?oz Pal%a and Aquino, **.,

concur.

Fernando, *., too: no part.

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

!&M& "o& 491 October 2, 1989

I" TE M!TTER O TE I"AUIR I"TO TE 1989 E$ECTIO"S O TE I"TE#R!TED /!R O TEPI$IPPI"ES&

PER CURI!M6

+n the election of the national officers of the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines hereafter )+BP) held on une 9,$&'& at the Philippine +nternational Con3ention Center or P+CC, the following were elected by the =ouse of?elegates composed of $;D chapter presidents or their alternates and proclaimed as officers5

NAME P1#+T+1N

Atty! :ioleta ?rilon President

Atty! Bella Tiro E8ecuti3e :ice@President

Atty! #al3ador *ao Chairman, =ouse of ?elegates

Atty! Renato 2! Ron4uillo #ecretary, =ouse of ?elegates

Atty! Teodoro Huicoy Treasurer, =ouse of ?elegates

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! 1scar Badelles #ergeant at Arms, =ouse of ?elegates

Atty! ustiniano Cortes o3ernor I :ice@President for Northern *u"on

Atty! Ciriaco Atien"a o3ernor I :ice@President for Central *u"on

Atty! Mario alandoni o3ernor I :ice@President for Metro Manila

Atty! ose Aguilar rapilon o3ernor I :ice@President for #outhern *u"on

Atty! Teodoro Almine o3ernor I :ice@President for Bicolandia

Atty! Porfirio #iyangco o3ernor I :ice@President for Eastern :isayas

Atty! Ricardo Teruel o3ernor I :ice@President for /estern :isayas

Atty! ladys Tiongco o3ernor I :ice@President for Eastern Mindanao

Atty! #imeon ?atumanong o3ernor I :ice@President for /estern Mindanao

The newly@elected officers were set to ta6e the their oath of office on uly %,$&'&, before the #upreme Court enbanc! =owe3er,disturbed by the widespread reports recei3ed by some members of the Court from lawyers who

had witnessed or participated in the proceedings and the ad3erse comments published in the columns of somenewspapers about the intensi3e electioneering and o3erspending by the candidates, led by the mainprotagonists for the office of president of the association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and:ioleta C! ?rilon, the alleged use of go3ernment planes, and the officious inter3ention of certain public officialsto influence the 3oting, all of which were done in 3iolation of the +BP By@*aws which prohibit such acti3ities! The#upreme Court en banc , e8ercising its power of super3ision o3er the +ntegrated Bar, resol3ed to suspend theoath@ta6ing of the +BP officers@elect and to in4uire into the 3eracity of the reports!

+t should be stated at the outset that the election process itself i!e! the 3oting and the can3assing of 3otes onune 9, $&'& which was conducted by the )+BP Comelec,) headed by ustice Reynato Puno of the Court of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Appeals, was unanimously ad7udged by the participants and obser3ers to be abo3e board! 2or ustice Punotoo6 it upon himself to de3ice safeguards to pre3ent tampering with, and mar6ing of, the ballots!

/hat the Court 3iewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and e8tra3agance thatcharacteri"ed the campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of the +BP!

+! ME?+A ACC1.NT 12 T=E E*ECT+1N CAMPA+N!

Emil urado, in his column )+BP roup Huestions ?rilon Election) Manila #tandard, #unday, une $<, $&'&,*uis Mauricio, in two successi3e columns5 )The +n3ertebrated Bar) Malaya, une $D, $&'& and )The?isintegrating Bar) Malaya, une ;D, $&'&, and Teodoro *ocsin r! in an article, entitled )Pam@Pam) ThePhilippines 2ree Press, uly ',$&'&, and the editorial, entitled /rong 2orum) of the ?aily lobe une ',$&'&, were unanimously critical of the )3ote@buying and pressure tactics) allegedly employed in the campaignby the three principal candidates5 Attys! :ioleta C! ?rilon, Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly)poured heart, soul, money and influence to win o3er the $;D +BP delegates!)

Mr! urado mentioned the resentment of Atty! ?rilons ri3als who felt at a disad3antage because Atty! ?rilonallegedly used PNB helicopters to 3isit far@flung +BP chapters on the prete8t of distributing Bigay Pusodonations, and she had the added ad3antage of ha3ing regional directors and labor arbiters of the ?epartmentof *abor and Employment who had been granted lea3es of absence by her husband, the *abor #ecretary

campaigning for her! urados informants alleged that there was rampant 3ote@buying by some members of the.!P! #igma Rho 2raternity #ecretary ?rilons fraternity, as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA Angara,Concepcion, Cru", Regala and Abello *aw 1ffice where Mrs! ?rilon is employed, and that go3ernmentpositions were promised to others by the office of the *abor #ecretary!

Mr! Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, in addition, mentioned )tal6 of personnel of the?epartment of *abor, especially conciliators and employers, notably Chinese 2ilipinos, gi3ing aid and comfortto her Atty! ?rilons candidacy,) the billeting of out@of@town delegates in plush hotels where they werereportedly )wined and dined continuously, womened and sub7ected to endless haggling o3er the price of their3otes 8 8 8) which allegedly )ranged from Pl>,DDD to P;D,DDD, and, on the day of the election, some twel3e totwenty 3otes which were belie3ed crucial, appreciated to P>D,DDD!)

+n his second column, Mr! Mauricio mentioned )how a top official of the 7udiciary allegedly in3ol3ed himself in

+BP politics on election day by closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in aroom of the P+CC the Philippine +nternational Con3ention Center where the con3entionJelection were heldduring a recess 8 8 8!)

Mr! *ocsin in his column and editorial substantially re@echoed Mauricios reports with some embellishments!

++! T=E C1.RT# ?EC+#+1N T1 +N:E#T+ATE!

Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en banc resolution dated une $>, $&'&, directed theoutgoing and incoming members of the +BP Board of o3ernors, the principal officers and Chairman of the=ouse of ?elegates to appear before it on Tuesday, une ;D, $&'&, at ;5DD ocloc6 p!m!, and there to inform theCourt on the 3eracity of the aforementioned reports and to recommend, for the consideration of the Court,appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and strengthening adherence to the fundamental

principles of the +BP!

+n that resolution the Court )called to mind that a basic postulate of the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines +BP,hea3ily stressed at the time of its organi"ation and commencement of e8istence, is that the +BP shall be non@political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Boardof o3ernors and of the =ouse of ?elegates, and of the +BP officers, national, or regional, or chapter! Thefundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and go3ernors would be chosen on the basis ofprofessional merit and willingness and ability to ser3e!)

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The resolution went on to say that the )Court is deeply disturbed to note that in connection with the election ofmembers of the Board of o3ernors and of the =ouse of ?elegates, there is a widespread belief, based onreports carried by media and transmitted as well by word of mouth, that there was e8tensi3e and intensi3ecampaigning by candidates for +BP positions as well as e8penditure of considerable sums of money bycandidates, including 3ote@buying, direct or indirect!)

The 3enerable retired #upreme Court ustice and +BP President Emeritus, ose B!*! Reyes, attended thedialogue, upon in3itation of the Court, to gi3e counsel and ad3ice! The meeting between the Court en banc onthe one hand, and the outgoing and in coming +BP officers on the other, was an informal one! Thereafter, theCourt resol3ed to conduct a formal in4uiry to determine whether the prohibited acts and acti3ities enumeratedin the +BP By@*aws were committed before and during the $&'& elections of +BPs national officers!

The Court en banc formed a committee and designated #enior Associate ustice Andres R! Nar3asa, asChairman, and Associate ustices Teodoro R! Padilla, Emilio A! ancayco, Abraham 2! #armiento, andCarolina C! riKo@A4uino, as members, to conduct the in4uiry! The Cler6 of Court, Atty! ?aniel Martine", actedas the committees Recording #ecretary!

A total of forty@nine %& witnesses appeared and testified in response to subpoenas issued by the Court toshed light on the conduct of the elections! The managers of three fi3e@star hotels the Philippine Pla"a, the=yatt, and the =oliday +nn where the three protagonists ?rilon, Nisce and Paculdo allegedly set up their

respecti3e head4uarters and where they billeted their supporters were summoned! The officer of the PhilippineNational Ban6 and the Air Transport 1ffice were called to enlighten the Court on the charge that an +BPpresidential candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places in theircampaign to win the 3otes of delegates! The Philippine Airlines officials were called to testify on the charge thatsome candidates ga3e free air fares to delegates to the con3ention! 1fficials of the *abor ?epartment werealso called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the reports that labor officials openly campaigned orwor6ed for the election of Atty! ?rilon!

The newspaper columnists, Messrs! *uis Mauricio, esus Bigornia and Emil urado were subpoenaed todetermine the nature of their sources of information relati3e to the +BP elections! Their stories were based, theysaid, on letters, phone calls and personal inter3iews with persons who claimed to ha3e 6nowledge of the facts,but whom they, in3o6ing the Press 2reedom *aw, refused to identify!

The Committee has since submitted its Report after recei3ing, and analy"ing and assessing e3idence gi3en bysuch persons as were percei3ed to ha3e direct and personal 6nowledge of the rele3ant facts0 and the Court,after deliberating thereon, has Resol3ed to accept and adopt the same!

+++! PR1=+B+TE? ACT# AN? PRACT+CE# .N?ER +BP BL@*A/#!

Article +, #ection % of the +BP By@*aws emphasi"es the )strictly non@political) character of the +ntegrated Bar ofthe Philippines, thus5

)#EC! %! Non@political Bar! ( The +ntegrated Bar is strictly non@political, and e3ery acti3itytending to impair this basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penali"ed accordingly! Nolawyer holding an electi3e, 7udicial, 4uasi@7udicial, or prosecutory office in the o3ernment orany political subdi3ision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election or appointmentto any position in the +ntegrated Bar or any Chapter thereof! A ?elegate, o3ernor, officer oremployee of the +ntegrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall beconsidered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate ofcandidacy for any electi3e public office or accepts appointment to any 7udicial, 4uasi@7udicial,or prosecutory office in the o3ernment or any political subdi3ision or instrumentality thereof!)

#ection $% of the same By@*aws enumerates the prohibited acts relati3e to +BP elections5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#EC! $%! Prohibited acts and practices relati3e to elections! ( The following acts andpractices relati3e to election are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any electi3eoffice in the +ntegrated Bar or by any other member, directly or indirectly, in any form ormanner, by himself or through another person5

a ?istribution, e8cept on election day, of election campaign material0

b ?istribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of thebiodata of a candidate on not more than one page of a legal@si"e sheet of paper0 or causingdistribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authori"ed by the officer presiding at the elections0

c Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an electi3e, 7udicial, 4uasi@7udicialor prosecutory office in the o3ernment or any political subdi3ision, agency or instrumentalitythereof0

d 2ormation of tic6ets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as thead3ertisement thereof0

e 2or the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his 3ote, or to 3ote for oragainst a candidate, $ payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member0 ; gi3ingof food, drin6, entertainment, transportation or any article of 3alue, or any similar considerationto any person0 or 9 ma6ing a promise or causing an e8penditure to be made, offered orpromised to any person!)

#ection $;d of the By@*aws prescribes sanctions for 3iolations of the abo3e rules5

d Any 3iolation of the rules go3erning elections or commission of any of the prohibited actsand practices defined in #ection $% prohibited Acts and Practices relati3e to elections of theby@laws of the +ntegrated Bar shall be a ground for the dis4ualification of a candidate or hisremo3al from office if elected, without pre7udice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erringmember pursuant to the By@laws of the +ntegrated Bar!

At the formal in3estigation which was conducted by the in3estigating committee, the following 3iolations wereestablished5

$ Prohibited ca%paigning and solicitation of 'otes b" the candidates for president, executi'e 'icepresident,the officers of candidate the >ouse of 1elegates and oard of <o'ernors.

The three candidates for +BP President ?rilon, Nisce and Paculdo began tra3elling around the country to solicitthe 3otes of delegates as early as April $&'&! .pon the in3itation of +BP President, *eon arcia, r! t!s!n!, uly$9,$&'&, p! %, they attended the Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April $&'& t!s!n!, une ;&, $&'&,p! $;9, in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in Baguio City during the conference of chapter presidents ofNorthern *u"on t!s!n!, uly 9,$&'&, p! $$90 t!s!n!, uly $D, p! %$0 t!s!n!, uly $9, p! %< where they announcedtheir candidacies and met the chapter presidents!

Atty! Nisce admitted that he went around the country see6ing the help of +BP chapter officers, soliciting their3otes, and securing their written endorsements! =e personally hand@carried nomination forms and re4uestedthe chapter presidents and delegates to fill up and sign the forms to formali"e their commitment to hisnomination for +BP President! =e started campaigning and distributing the nomination forms in March $&'&after the chapter elections which determined the membership of the =ouse of ?elegates composed of the $;Dchapter presidents t!s!n!, une ;&, $&'&, pp! ';@'! =e obtained forty %D commitments! =e submittedphotocopies of his nomination forms which read5

)Nomination 2orm

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+ oin in Nominating

RAM1N M! N+#CE

as

National President of the

+ntegrated Bar of the Philippines

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Chapter #ignature)

Among those who signed the nomination forms were5 1nofre P! Te7ada, Candido P! Balbin, r!, Coni"ado :!Posadas, Huirico *! Huirico Ernesto #! #alun@at, loria C! Agunos, 1scar B! Bernardo, 2eliciano 2! /ycoco, Amor *! +barra, ose M! Atien"a, ose N! Contreras, Romeo T! Mendo"a, *eo C! Medialdea, r!, Paulino !Clarin, ulius ! Neil, Roem ! Arbolado ?emocrito M! Pere", Abelardo 2ermin, ?iosdado B! :illarin, r!, ?anielC! Macaraeg, Confesor R! #ansano ?ionisio E! Bala, r!, Emesto A! Amores, Romeo :! Pefianco, Augurio C!Pamintuan, Atlee T! :iray, Ceferino C! Cabanas, ose #! Buban, ?iosdado ! Relo7, r!, Cesar C! :iola, 1scarC! 2ernande", Ricardo B! Teruel Rodrigo R! 2lores, #i8to Marella, r!, Arsenio C! :illalon, Renato 2! Ron4uillo, Antonio ! Nalapo Romualdo A! ?in r!, ose P! +caonapo r!, and Manuel #! Person!

Atty! Nisce admitted that he reser3ed rooms at the =yatt =otel based on the commitments he had obtainedt!s!n!, une ;&, $&'&, pp! ';@'>! .nfortunately, despite those formal commitments, he obtained only $% 3otesin the election t!s!n!, une ;&, $ &'&, p! '! The reason, he said, is that! some of those who had committedtheir 3otes to him were )manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or remunerated) t!s!n!, une ;&,$&'&, pp! '&>0E8hibit )M@%@Nisce,) t!s!n!, uly %, $&'&, pp! $DD@$ D%!

; .se of PNB plane in the campaign!

The records of the Philippine National Ban6 E8hibit C@$@Crudo and E8hibit C@;@Crudo show that #ecretary2ulgencio #! 2actoran, r! of the ?epartment of En3ironment I Natural Resources ?ENR borrowed a planefrom the Philippine National Ban6 for his Bicol C1R? Cabinet 1fficers for Regional ?e3elopment Assistant,.ndersecretary Antonio Tria! The plane manifest E8h! C@;@Crudo listed Atty! :ioleta ?rilon, Arturo Tusi Tiu, Assistant #ecretary for En3ironment and Natural Resources ?ENR Tony Tria, Atty! ladys Tiongco, and Amy/ong! E8cept for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were +BP candidates!

Atty! ?rilon admitted that she )hitched) a ride on a PNB plane! #he said that she was informed by Atty! Tiuabout the a3ailability of a PNB plane t!s!n!, uly 9,$&'&, pp! $$@$$'!

Atty! Tiu, who ran for the position of +BP e8ecuti3e 3ice@president in the ?rilon tic6et, testified that sometime inMay $&'& he failed to obtain boo6ing from the Philippine Airlines for the pro7ected trip of his group to Bicol! =ewent to the ?ENR allegedly to follow up some papers for a client! /hile at the ?ENR, he learned that Assistant#ecretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol for #ecretary 2ulgencio 2actoran and that he would beta6ing a PNB plane! As Assistant #ecretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he as6ed if he, together with the ?rilongroup, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol! =is re4uest was granted! Their purpose in going to Bicol was toassess their chances in the +BP elections! The ?rilon company tal6ed with the +BP chapter presidents in ?aet,Naga, and *egaspi, and as6ed for their support t!s!n!, uly $D, $&'&, pp! >%&!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Assistant #ecretary Antonio #! Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty! ?rilon and her group! =e recalledthat on May ;9,$&'&, ?ENR #ecretary 2actoran instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regionalde3elopment pro7ects there and to sur3ey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May! 1nthe same day, Atty! Tiu, a fraternity brother meaning that Tiu belongs to the #igma Rho fraternity went to the?ENR office and re4uested the #ecretary 2actoran if he Tiu could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane! Assistant #ecretary Tria, together with the ?rilon group which included Attorneys ?rilon, rapilon, Amy /ong,ladys Tiongco, and Tiu, too6 off at the ?omestic Airport bound for Naga, ?aet and *egaspi! +n *egaspi the

?rilon group had lunch with Atty! :icente Real, r!, an +BP chapter president t!s!n!, uly $D, $&'&, pp! >%@&!

9 2ormation of tic6ets and single slates!

The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and ?rilon, admitted ha3ing formed their own slates for the election of+BP national officers on une 9, $&'&!

Atty! Paculdos slate consisted of ( himself for President0 Bella ?! Tiro, for E8ecuti3e :ice@President0 and foro3ernors5 ustiniano P! Corte" Northern *u"on, 1scar C! 2ernande" Central *u"on, Mario C!:! alandonireater Manila, Petronilo A! de la Cru" #outhern *u"on, Teodorico C! Almine, r! Bicolandia, Ricardo B!Teruel /estern :isayas, Porfirio P! #iyangco Eastern :isayas, esus #! Anonat /estern Mindanao,uerrero A! Ada"a, r! Eastern Mindanao E8hibit M@Nisce!

The ?rilon tic6et consisted of! :ioleta C! ?rilon for President, Arturo Tiu for E8ecuti3e :ice President, #al3ador*ao for Chairman of the =ouse of ?elegates, and, for o3ernors5 Basil Rupisan Northern *u"on, Acong Atien"a Central *u"on, Amy /ong Metro Manila, ose rapilon #outhern Tagalog, Teodoro AlmineBicolandia, Baldomero Esten"o Eastern :isayas, oelito Barrera /estern :isayas, ladys TiongcoEastern Mindanao, #imeon ?atumanong /estern Mindanao E8hibit M@$@Nisce!

Atty! Ramon N! Nisces line@up listed himself and Confessor B! #ansano Ben7amin B! Bernardino, Antonio *!Nalapo Renato 2! Ron4uillo, loria C! Agunos, Mario :alderrama, Candido P! Balbin r!, 1scar C! 2ernande",Cesar ! :iola, *eo C! Medialdea, r!, :icente P! Tordilla, r!, ose #! Buban, oel A! *losa, esus T! Albaciteand 1scar :! Badelles!

% i3ing free transportation to out@of@town delegates and alternates!

Atty! Nisce admitted ha3ing bought plane tic6ets for some delegates to the con3ention! =e mentioned 1scarBadelles to whom he ga3e four round@trip tic6ets worth about P$D,DDD from +ligan City to Manila and bac6!Badelles was a 3oting delegate! Nisce, howe3er, failed to get a written commitment from him because Atty!Medialdea assured him Nisce )sigurado na yan, hwag mo nang papirmahin!) Badelles won as sergeant@at@arms, not in Nisces tic6et, but in that of ?rilon!

Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tic6ets, but he Badelles said that he did not use them,because if he did, he would be committed to Nisce, and he Badelles did not want to be committed t!s!n!, uly%,$&'&, pp! <<@<&, &>@&!

Nisce also sent a plane tic6et to Atty! Atilano, who was his candidate, and another tic6et to Mrs! *inda *im ofamboanga! Records of the Philippine Airlines showed that Atty! Nisce paid for the plane tic6ets of :icenteReal, r! E8h! ?@$@Calica, Romeo 2ortes E8h! ?@$@Calica, Cesar Batica E8h! ?@;@Calica, ose Buban of

*eyte E8h! ?@;@Calica, ?elsanto Resuello E8h! ?@9@ Calica, and Ceferino Cabanas E8h! ?@9@Calica!

+n spite of his efforts and e8pense, only one of Nisces candidates won5 Renato Ron4uillo of Manila %, as#ecretary of the =ouse of ?elegates t!s!n! uly 9, p! $$!

> i3ing free hotel accommodations, food, drin6s, entertainment to delegates!

a ATTL! NERE1 PAC.*?1

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! Paculdo alleged that he boo6ed ;% regular rooms and three suites at the =oliday +nn, which ser3ed as hishead4uarters! The ;% rooms were to be occupied by his staff mostly ladies and the +BP delegates! The threesuites were to be occupied by himself, the officers of the Capitol Bar Association, and Atty! Mario alandoni! =epaid P$>D,DDD for the hotel bills of his delegates at the =oliday +nn, where a room cost P&&D per day withbrea6fast!

Those listed as guests of Atty! Paculdo at the =oliday +nn were5 Emesto C! Pere", Tolomeo *igutan udge Alfonso Combong, Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto Bala7adia, esus Castro, Restituto :illanue3a,#erapio Cribe uanita #ubia, Teodorico ! Almine, Rudy umban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, #hirleyMoises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Huicoy Manito *ucero, 2red Cledera :icente Tordilla, ulian1campo, 2rancisco 2eli"menio Mar3el Cla3ecilla, Amador Capiral, Eufronio Maristela, Porfirio #iyangco,/illiam *lanes, r!, Marciano Neri, uerrero Ada"a, ?iosdado Peralta, *uis C! 2ormille"a, r!, ?emocrito Pere",Bruno 2lores, ?ennis Rendon, udge Ceferino Chan, Mario alandoni, -enneth #iruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio#antos, Tiburcio Edano ames Tan, Cesilo A! Ada"a, 2rancisco Ro8as, Angelita acutan, esse Pimentel,udge aime =amoy, esus Anonat, Carlos Egay, udge Carlito Eisma, udge esus Carbon, o3en ach, andBen7amin Padon!

Noel de u"man, =oliday +nns credit manager, testified that Atty! Paculdo boo6ed >; not ;% rooms, includingthe presidential suite, which was used as the #ecretariat! The group boo6ings were made by Atty! loriaPaculdo, the wife of Nereo Paculdo t!s!n! une ;', $&'&, pp! 9@'! The total sum of P;;<,$$%!'& was paid to

=oliday +nn for the use of the rooms!

b ATTL! :+1*ETA C! ?R+*1N

The delegates and supporters of Atty! ?rilon were billeted at the Philippine Pla"a =otel where her campaignmanager, Atty! Renato Callanta, boo6ed %D rooms, > of which were suites! According to Ms! :illanue3a,Philippine Pla"a ban4uet and con3entions manager, the contract that Atty! Callanta signed with the PhilippinePla"a was made in the name of the )+BP cJo Atty! Callanta!)

Mrs! *ourdes uco, a sales manager of the Philippine Pla"a, recalled that it was Mr! Mariano Benedicto whofirst came to boo6 rooms for the +BP delegates! #he suggested that he obtain a group or discounted rate! =ega3e her the name of Atty! Callanta who would ma6e the arrangements with her! Mr! Benedicto turned out to bethe Assistant #ecretary of the ?epartment of *abor and Employment ?1*E!

The total sum of P9$,%$$!>9 was paid by Atty! Callanta for the rooms, food, and be3erages consumed by the?rilon group, with an unpaid balance of P9D;,$&<!9D! Per Attorney ?aniel Martine"s last telephonecon3ersation with Ms! :illanue3a, Atty! Callanta still has an outstanding account of P;9;,<';!> at PhilippinePla"a!

Atty! Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for %D rooms at the Philippine Pla"a! =e made adownpayment of P$;9,DDD! =is )wor6ing sheet showed that the following persons contributed for that downpayment5

a Nilo Pena Huasha *aw 1ffice P ;>,DDD

b Antonio Carpio ;D,DDD

c Toto 2errer Carpio *aw 1ffice $D,DDD

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


d ay Castro $D,DDD

e ?anny ?een ;D,DDD

f Angangco Tan Angara *aw 1ffice $D,DDD

g Alfonso Reyno ;D,DDD

h Cosme Rossel $>,9DD

t!s!n! uly %, $ &'&, pp! 9@%

Atty! Callanta e8plained that the abo3e listed persons ha3e been contributing money e3ery time the +BPembar6s on a pro7ect! This time, they contributed so that their partners or associates could attend the legal aidseminar and the +BP con3ention too!

Atty! ?rilon alleged that she did not 6now that Atty! Callanta had billeted her delegates at the Philippine Pla"a!#he allegedly did not also 6now in whose name the room she occupied was registered! But she did as6 for aroom where she could rest during the con3ention! #he admitted, howe3er, that she paid for her hotel room andmeals to Atty! Callanta, through Atty! *oan"on t!s!n! uly 9,$&'&!

The following were listed as ha3ing occupied the rooms reser3ed by Atty! Callanta at the Philippine Pla"a5:ioleta ?rilon, :ictoria A! :erciles, :ictoria C! *oan"on, *eopoldo A! Consulto Ador *ao, :ictoria Borra, Aimee/ong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu, allardo, Acong Atien"a, ?! Bernardo, Amores, #ilao Caingat, Manuel Luson,#imeon ?atumanong, Manuel Pecson, #i8to Marella, oselito Barrera, Radon Macalalag, 1scar Badelles, Antonio Acyatan, +ldefonso C! Puerto, Nestor Atien"a, il Batula Array Corot, ?ima6uta Corot Romeo 2ortes+r3ing Petilla, Teodoro Palma, il Palma, ?anilo ?een, ?elsanto, Resuello, Araneta, :icente Real, #yl3ioCasuncad Espina, uerrero, ulius Neri, *inda *im, Ben *im, C! Batica, *uis 2ormille"a, 2eli8 Macalag MarianoBenedicto, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta!

Atty! Nilo Pena admitted that the Huasha *aw 1ffice of which he is a senior partner, ga3e P;>,DDD to Callantafor rooms at the Philippine Pla"a so that some members of his law firm could campaign for the ?rilon groupt!s!n! uly >,$&'&, pp! <<' during the legal aid seminar and the +BP con3ention! Most of the members of hislaw firm are fraternity brothers of #ecretary ?rilon meaning, members of the #igma Rho 2raternity! =e

admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty! ?rilon and the members of her slate, two of whom oserapilon and #imeon ?atumanong ( are #igma Rhoans! They consider Atty! ?rilon as a )sigma rho sister,) her husband being a sigma rhoan!

Atty! Antonio Carpio, also a #igma Rhoan, reser3ed a room for the members of his own firm who attended thelegal aid seminar and the con3ention! =e made the reser3ation through Atty! Callanta to whom he paid P;D,DDDt!s!n! uly ,$&'&, pp! 9D@9%!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! Carpio assisted Atty! ?rilon in her campaign during the con3ention, by soliciting the 3otes of delegates he6new, li6e Atty! Albacite his former teacher but the latter was already committed to Nisce, and Atty! Romy2ortes, a classmate of his in the .!P! College of *aw t! t!s!n! uly , $&'&, pp! ;;, ;&, 9&!

c ATTL! RAM1N N+#CE!

Atty! Nisce, through his brother@in@law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a contract with the =yatt =otel for a total of;& rooms plus one $ se3enth@floor room! =e made a downpayment of P;D,DDD t!s!n! une ;', $&'&, p! >'on April ;D, $&'&, and P9<,9;!%> on May $D, or a total of P><,9;!%>!

Ms! Cecile 2lores, Ms! Milagros 1campo, and Mr! Ramon acinto, the sales department manager, creditmanager, and reser3ation manager, respecti3ely of the =yatt, testified that Atty! Nisces bill amounted toP;$,$;<!<% t!s!n! une ;', $&'&, pp! ><@>'0 E8hibits E@2lores, 2@acinto @1campo!

As earlier mentioned, Atty! Nisce admitted that he reser3ed rooms for those who committed themsel3es to hiscandidacy!

The hotel guests of Atty! Nisce were5 loria Agunos ?ennis =abanel B! Batula, ohn E! Asuncion, ReynaldoCortes, *ourdes #antos, Elmer ?atuin, Romualdo ?in, Antonio Nalapo, +srael ?amasco, Candido Balbin,

#errano Balot, +barra, oel *losa, Eltanal, Ruperto, Asuncion, H! Pilotin Reymundo P! u"man, oilo Aguinaldo,Clarin, R! Ron4uillo, ?ominador Carillo, 2ilomeno Balinas, Ernesto #abulan, Lusop Pangadapun, A! :iray,+campo, Abelardo 2ermin, C! Huiaoit, Augurio Pamintuan, ?aniel Macaraeg, 1nofre Te7ada!

Campaigning by labor officials for Atty! :ioleta ?rilon

+n 3iolation of the prohibition against )campaigning for or against a candidate while holding an electi3e, 7udicial,4uasi@7udicial, or prosecutory office in the o3ernment #ec! $%c, Art! +, +BP By@*aws, Mariano E! Benedicto++, Assistant #ecretary, ?epartment of *abor and Employment, testified that he too6 a lea3e of absence from hisoffice to attend the +BP con3ention! =e stayed at the Philippine Pla"a with the ?rilon group admittedly to gi3e)some moral assistance) to Atty! :ioleta ?rilon! =e did so because he is a member of the #igma Rho 2raternity!/hen as6ed about the significance of #igma Rho, #ecretary Benedicto e8plained5 )More than the husband ofMrs! ?rilon being my boss, the significance there is that the husband is my brother in the #igma Rho!)

=e cheered up Mrs!, ?rilon when her spirits were low! =e tal6ed to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu,Tony Carpio, Nilo Pena, Amy /ong, Atty! rapilon, :ictor *a"atin, and Boy Reyno! They assessed the progressof the campaign, and measured the strengths and wea6nesses of the other groups The group had sessions asearly as the later part of May!

Room $$%, the suite listed in the name of Assistant #ecretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P;9,$$D during the ;@day +BP con3entionJelection! A total of $$9 phone calls amounting to Pl,9> were recorded as emanating fromhis room!

1pposite Room $$%, was Room $$;, also a suite, listed in the names of Mrs! ?rilon, ladys Tiongco candidatefor o3ernor, Eastern Mindanao and Amy /ong candidate for o3ernor, Metro Manila! These two roomsser3ed as the )action center or )war room) where campaign strategies were discussed before and during thecon3ention! +t was in these rooms where the supporters of the ?rilon group, li6e Attys! Carpio, Callanta,

Benedicto, the Huasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot their mo3es!

< Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number #ec! $%e, +BP BL@*aws!

Atty! Teresita C! #ison, +BP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates paying the +BP dues of lawyerswho promised to 3ote for or support them, but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate whopaid the delin4uent dues of another, because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whompayment is made t!s!n! une ;', $&'&, pp! ;%@;'!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#he has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in March, April, May during any election year!This year, the collections increased by P$DD,DDD o3er that of last year a non@election year from Pl,%$9,%;> toPl,>;%,'<> t!s!n! une ;', $&'&, p! ;>!

' ?istribution of materials other than bio@data of not more than one page of legal si"e sheet of paper #ec!$%a, +BP By@*aws!

1n the con3ention floor on the day of the election, Atty! Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio@data andcopies of a leaflet entitled )My Huest,) as wen as, the lists of his slate! Attys! ?rilon and Nisce similarlydistributed their tic6ets and bio@data!

The campaign materials of Atty! Paculdo cost from P$>,DDD to P;D,DDD! They were printed by his own printingshop!

& Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authori"ed by the officerpresiding at the election #ec! $%b, +BP By@*aws!

Atty! Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on the con3ention floor! Atty! Carpionoted that there were more campaign materials distributed at the con3ention site this year than in pre3ious

years! The election was more heated and e8pensi3e t!s!n! uly ,$&'&, p! 9&!

Atty! Ben7amin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the +BP Ri"al Chapter, and a candidate for chairman ofthe =ouse of ?elegates on Nisces tic6et, testified that campaign materials were distributed during thecon3ention by girls and by lawyers! =e saw members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty! ?rilon t!s!n!uly 9,$&'&, pp! $%;@$%>!

$D +nducing or influencing a member to withhold his 3ote, or to 3ote for or against a candidate #ec! $%e, +BPBL@*aws!

Atty! Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty! Romeo Capulong, urged him to withdraw his candidacy forchairman of the =ouse of ?elegates and to run as 3ice@chairman in :ioly ?rilons slate, but he declined t!s!n!uly 9,$&'&, pp! $9<, $%&!

Atty! loria Agunos personnel director of the =yatt Terraces =otel in Baguio and president of the Baguio@Benguet +BP Chapter, recalled that in the third wee6 of May $&'&, after the Tripartite meet of the ?epartment of *abor I Employment at the reen :alley Country Club in Baguio City, she met Atty! ?rilon, together with twolabor officers of Region $, Attys! 2ilomeno Balbin and Atty! Mansala Atty! ?rilon solicited her Atty! Agunos 3oteand in3ited her to stay at the Philippine Pla"a where a room would be a3ailable for her! Atty! Paculdo also triedto enlist her support during the chapter presidents meeting to choose their nominee for go3ernor for theNorthern *u"on region t!s!n! uly $9,$&'&, pp! %9@>%!

Atty! Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter % delegate, Marcial Magsino, who had earlier committed his 3ote toNisce changed his mind when he was offered a 7udgeship This statement, howe3er, is admittedly hearsay!/hen Nisce confronted Magsino about the alleged offer, the latter denied that there was such an offer! Niscesinformant was Antonio ! Nalapo an +BP candidate who also withdrew!

Another Nisce candidate, Cesar :iola, withdrew from the race and refused to be nominated t!s!n! une ;&,$&'&, p! $D%! :icente P! Tordilla who was Nisces candidate for o3ernor became Paculdos candidate insteadt!s!n! une ;&, $&'&, p! $D%!

Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar ?ialogue in Cotabato City, Court Administrator Tiro went aroundsaying, )+ am not campaigning, but my wife is a candidate!) Nisce said that the presidents of se3eral +BPchapters informed him that labor officials were campaigning for Mrs! ?rilon t!s!n! une ;&,$&'&, pp! $D&@$$D!=e mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in *a .nion t!s!n! une ;&,$&'&,p!$$$

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! oel A! *losa, Nisces supporter and candidate for go3ernor of the /estern :isayas, e8pressed hisdisappointment o3er the +BP elections because some delegates flip@flopped from one camp to another! =etestified that when he arri3ed at the Manila ?omestic Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of the?1*E who offered to bring him to the Philippine Pla"a, but he declined the offer! ?uring the legal aid seminar, Atty! ?rilon in3ited him to transfer to the Philippine Pla"a where a room had been reser3ed for him! =e declinedthe in3itation t!s!n! uly %,$&'&, pp! $D;@$D!

Atty! *losa said that while he was still in ?umaguete City, he already 6new that the three candidates had theirhead4uarters in separate hotels5 Paculdo, at the =oliday +nn0 ?rilon, at the Philippine Pla"a0 and Nisce, at the=yatt! =e 6new about this because a wee6 before the elections, representati3es of Atty! ?rilon went to?umaguete City to campaign! =e mentioned Atty! Rodil Montebon of the ACCRA *aw 1ffice, accompanied by Atty! ul3e the Assistant Regional ?irector of the ?epartment of *abor in ?umaguete City! These two, he said,offered to gi3e him two PA* tic6ets and accommodations at the Philippine Pla"a t!s!n! uly %,$&'&, pp! $D$@$D%! But he declined the offer because he was already committed to Atty! Nisce!

Atty! *losa also re3ealed that before he left for Manila on May 9$, $&'&, a businessman, =enry ?y, approachedhim to con3ince him to 3ote for Atty! Paculdo! But *losa told ?y that he was already committed to Nisce!

=e did not recei3e any plane tic6ets from Atty! Nisce because he and his two companions Atty! Eltanal and Atty! Ruperto had earlier bought their own tic6ets for Manila t!s!n! uly %, $&'&, p! $D$!

#.MMARL 12 CAMPA+N EQPEN#E# +NC.RRE?

BL T=E CAN?+?ATE#

Atty! Paculdo admitted ha3ing spent some P;>D,DDD during his three wee6s of campaigning! 1f this amount,the Capitol Bar Association of which he was the chapter president contributed about P$>D,DDD! The CapitolBar Association is a 3oluntary bar association composed of Hue"on City lawyers!

=e spent about P$DD,DDD to defray the e8penses of his trips to the pro3inces Bicol pro3inces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain Pro3ince and Bulacan t!s!n! une ;&,$&'&, pp! &@$%!

Atty! Nisces hotel bills at the =yatt amounted to P;$,$;<!<%! This does not include the e8penses for hiscampaign which began se3eral months before the une 9rd election, and his purchases of airplane tic6ets forsome delegates!

The records of the Philippine Pla"a =otel, head4uarters of Atty! ?rilons camp, showed that her campaign rangup o3er PDD,DDD in hotel bills! Atty! Callanta paid P9$,%$$!>9 for the rooms, food, and be3erage consumedby Atty! ?rilons supporters, but still left an unpaid bill of P9D;,$&<!9D at con3entions end!

2+N?+N#!

2rom all the foregoing, it is e3ident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positionsin the +ntegrated Bar conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections on une 9, $&'&, 3iolated #ection$% of the +BP By@*aws and made a tra3esty of the idea of a )strictly non@political) +ntegrated Bar enshrined in#ection % of the By@*aws!

The setting up of campaign head4uarters by the three principal candidates ?rilon, Nisce and Paculdo in fi3e@star hotels5 The Philippine Pla"a, the =oliday +nn and The =yatt the better for them to corral and entertain thedelegates billeted therein0 the island hopping to solicit the 3otes of the chapter presidents who comprise the$;D@member =ouse of ?elegates that elects the national officers and regional go3ernors0 the formation oftic6ets, slates, or line@ups of candidates for the other electi3e positions aligned with, or supporting, either ?rilon,Paculdo or Nisce0 the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to be filledup by the delegates0 the reser3ation of rooms for delegates in three big hotels, at the e8pense of thepresidential candidates0 the use of a PNB plane by ?rilon and some members of her tic6et to enable them to

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


)assess their chances) among the chapter presidents in the Bicol pro3inces0 the printing and distribution oftic6ets and bio@data of the candidates which in the case of Paculdo admittedly cost him some P$>,DDD toP;D,DDD0 the employment of uniformed girls by Paculdo and lawyers by ?rilon to distribute their campaignmaterials on the con3ention floor on the day of the election0 the gi3ing of assistance by the .ndersecretary of*abor to Mrs! ?rilon and her group0 the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them tothe Philippine Pla"a =otel0 the gi3ing of pre@paid plane tic6ets and hotel accommodations to delegates andsome families who accompanied them in e8change for their support0 the pirating of some candidates by

inducing them to )hop) or )flipflop) from one tic6et to another for some rumored consideration0 all thesepractices made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election process!

The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only 3iolated the By@*aws of the +BP but alsothe ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey anduphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to )promote respect for law and legal processes) and to abstainfrom acti3ities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system) Rule $!D;, Canon$, Code of Professional Responsibility! Respect for law is gra3ely eroded when lawyers themsel3es, who aresupposed to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and ca3alierly brush aside the 3ery rules thatthe +BP formulated for their obser3ance!

The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from thedignity of the legal profession! The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to 3ote one way or another,

certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor ele3ate it in the publics esteem!

The Court notes with gra3e concern what appear to be the e3asions, denials and outright pre3arications thattainted the statements of the witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing conductedby it before its fact@finding committee was created! The subse4uent in3estigation conducted by this Committeehas re3ealed that those parties had been less than candid with the Court and seem to ha3e conspired amongthemsel3es to decei3e it or at least withhold 3ital information from it to conceal the irregularities committedduring the campaign!

C1NC*.#+1N#!

+t has been mentioned with no little insistence that the pro3ision in the $&'< Constitution #ee! ', Art! :+++pro3iding for a udicial and Bar Council composed of se3en < members among whom is )a representati3e of

the +ntegrated Bar,) tas6ed to participate in the selection of nominees for appointment to 3acant positions in the 7udiciary, may be the reason why the position of +BP president has attracted so much interest among thelawyers! The much co3eted )power) erroneously percei3ed to be inherent in that office might ha3e caused thecorruption of the +BP elections! To impress upon the participants in that electoral e8ercise the seriousness ofthe misconduct which attended it and the stern disappro3al with which it is 3iewed by this Court, and to restorethe non@political character of the +BP and reduce, if not entirely eliminate, e8pensi3e electioneering for the toppositions in the organi"ation which, as the recently concluded elections re3ealed, spawned unethical practiceswhich seriously diminished the stature of the +BP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and honoredprofession, the Court hereby 1R?ER#5

$! The +BP elections held on une9,$&'& should be as they are hereby annulled!

;! The pro3isions of the +BP By@*aws for the direct election by the =ouse of ?elegates appro3ed by this Courtin its resolution of uly &, $&'> in Bar Matter No! ;'< of the following national officers5

a the officers of the =ouse of ?elegates0

b the +BP president0 and

c the e8ecuti3e 3ice@president,

be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By@*aws of the +BP under #ection <<, Art! Q+ of said By@*aws!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


9! The former system of ha3ing the +BP President and E8ecuti3e :ice@President elected by the Board ofo3ernors composed of the go3ernors of the nine &$ +BP regions from among themsel3es as pro3ided in#ec! %<, Art! :++, 1riginal +BP By@*aws should be restored! The right of automatic succession by the E8ecuti3e:ice@President to the presidency upon the e8piration of their two@year term which was abolished by this Courtsresolution dated uly &,$&'> in Bar Matter No! ;'< should be as it is hereby restored!

%! At the end of the Presidents two@year term, the E8ecuti3e :ice@President shall automatically succeed to theoffice of president! The incoming board of go3ernors shall then elect an E8ecuti3e :ice@President from amongthemsel3es! The position of E8ecuti3e :ice@President shall be rotated among the nine & +BP regions! 1newho has ser3ed as president may not run for election as E8ecuti3e :ice@President in a succeeding election untilafter the rotation of the presidency among the nine & regions shall ha3e been completed0 whereupon, therotation shall begin anew!

>! #ection %< of Article :++ is hereby amended to read as follows5

#ection %<! National 1fficers! ( The +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines shall ha3e a Presidentand E8ecuti3e :ice@President to be chosen by the Board of o3ernors from among nine &regional go3ernors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis! The go3ernors shall be exoficio :ice@President for their respecti3e regions! There shall also be a #ecretary andTreasurer of the Board of o3ernors to be appointed by the President with the consent of the

Board!

! #ection 99b, Art! :, +BP By@*aws, is hereby amended as follows5

b The President and E8ecuti3e :ice President of the +BP shall be the Chairman and :ice@Chairman, respecti3ely, of the =ouse of ?elegates! The #ecretary, Treasurer, and #ergeant@at@Arms shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the =ouse of ?elegates!

<! #ection 99g of Article : pro3iding for the positions of Chairman, :ice@Chairman, #ecretary@Treasurer and#ergeant@at@ Arms of the =ouse of ?elegates is hereby repealed

'! #ection 9<, Article :+ is hereby amended to read as follows5

#ection 9<! Composition of the Board! ( The +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines shall bego3erned by a Board of o3ernors consisting of nine & o3ernors from the nine & regionsas delineated in #ection 9 of the +ntegration Rule, on the representation basis of one $o3ernor for each region to be elected by the members of the =ouse of ?elegates from thatregion only! The position of o3ernor should be rotated among the different Chapters in theregion!

&! #ection 9&, Article : is hereby amended as follows5

#ection 9&! Nomination and election of the o3ernors at least one $ month before thenational con3ention the delegates from each region shall elect the go3ernor for their region,the choice of which shall as much as possible be rotated among the chapters in the region!

$D! #ection99a, Article : hereby is amended by addingthe following pro3ision as part of the first paragraph5

No con3ention of the =ouse of ?elegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior toany election in an election year!

$$! #ection 9&, a, b, $, ;, 9, %, >, , and < of Article :+ should be as they are hereby deleted!

All other pro3isions of the By@*aws including its amendment by the Resolution en banc of this Court of uly &,$&'> Bar Matter No! ;'< that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


$;! #pecial elections for the Board of o3ernors shall be held in the nine & +BP regions within three 9months, after the promulgation of the Courts resolution in this case! /ithin thirty 9D days thereafter, theBoard of o3ernors shall meet at the +BP Central 1ffice in Manila to elect from among themsel3es the +BPnational president and e8ecuti3e 3ice@president! +n these special elections, the candidates in the election of thenational officers held on une 9,$&'&, particularly identified in #ub@=ead 9 of this Resolution entitled )2ormationof Tic6ets and #ingle #lates,) as well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with any of theirregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not present themsel3es as candidate for any

position!

$9! Pending such special elections, a careta6er board shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairsof the +BP! The Court ma6es clear that the dispositions here made are without pre7udice to its adoption in duetime of such further and other measures as are warranted in the premises!

#1 1R?ERE?!

ar'asa, Melencio>errera, &ruz, Paras, Feliciano, <anca"co, Padilla. idin, Sar%iento, &ortes, <ri?oAquinoand Regalado, **., concur.

Fernan, &.*. and Medialdea, *., too: no part.

<utierrez, *r., *., is on lea'e.

7/21/2019 cases 22-36



SUPREME COURTManila

T=+R? ?+:+#+1N

#&R& "o& 8241 Ma= 31, 1994

SPS& TE$M! R& M!SI"SI" an) MI#UE$ M!SI"SI", SPS& #I$/ERTO an) !DE$I"!,RO$D!", petitioners,

3s!

TE O"& ED >I"CE"T !$/!"O, Presi)ing %)ge o t.e Metroo(itan Tria( Cort o Mani(a, /ranc. B,DEPUT SERI %ESS !RREO$!, >ICE"TE C!ED! an) TE O"& $EO"!RDO CRU', in .iscaacit= as Presi)ing %)ge Regiona( Tria( o Mani(a, /ranc. BB>, respondents!

<regorio -. Fabros for petitioners.

4sidro F. Molina for pri'ate respondent.

R E # 1 * . T + 1 N

>ITU#, J.:

#pouses Miguel and Thelma Masinsin, et al!, instituted this petition for certiorari , prohibition, relief from

7udgment, as well as declaratory relief, with prayer for preliminary mandatory in7unction, as6ing us to order the

Metropolitan Trial Court )MTC) of Manila, Branch Q, to cease and desist from further proceeding with Ci3il

Case No! $D<;D9@C:!

This case emerged from an e7ectment suit doc6eted Ci3il Case No! $D<;D9@C: filed by pri3ate respondent

:icente CaKeda )CaKeda), then as plaintiffs, against herein petitioners, as defendants, with the Metropolitan

Trial Court of Manila Branch Q! After trial, the MTC, on D$ uly $&'>, rendered 7udgment0 thus5

PREM+#E# C1N#+?ERE?, 7udgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendants and all

persons claiming right under them to 3acate the premises and to remo3e their

houseJapartment and surrender possession of the sub7ect land to the plaintiff0 to pay to the

plaintiff the sum of P$DD!DD a month from anuary $&'< as the reasonable compensation for

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the use and occupation of the premises until the land is actually 3acated, and the costs of

suit! 1

No appeal ha3ing been ta6en therefrom, the 7udgment became final and e8ecutory! 1n ;; August $&'>,

petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch QQQ++ see6ing the

annulment of the aforesaid decision in the e7ectment case and to set aside an order of its e8ecution! The

petition was in due time dismissed! Again, no appeal was ta6en therefrom!

1n D< 1ctober $&'>, a complaint for )Annulment of udgment, *ease Contract and ?amages) was filed by

petitioners before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch Q*+ as6ing, in main, for the nullification of the

7udgment in the e7ectment case! The complaint was dismissed on the ground of res =udicata! This time,

petitioners appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals! Meanwhile, a writ of e8ecution was issued by the

MTC for the enforcement of its decision! The writ, howe3er, was held in abeyance when petitioners deposited

with the Court of Appeals the sum of P9,DDD!DD in cash plus an amount of P$DD!DD to be paid e3ery month

beginning 2ebruary $&'<! 1n $$ March $&'<, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of dismissal of the lower

court! Petitioners recourse to this Court was to be of no a3ail! The petition was denied, and an entry of

7udgment was made on $% uly $&'<!

Accordingly, the records were remanded to the MTC for e8ecution! /hen petitioners refused to remo3e theirhouse on the premises in 4uestion, upon motion of pri3ate respondent, an order of demolition was issued!

#hortly thereafter, the demolition began! Before the completion of the demolition, a restraining order was issued

by the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch Q+Q following a petition for certiorari , with preliminary in7unction

and restraining order, filed by petitioners! 1n ;9 2ebruary $&'', the trial court dismissed the petition!

.nfa"ed by the series of dismissals of their complaints and petitions, petitioners assailed anew the MTC

decision in a petition for certiorari , with preliminary in7unction, and for declaratory relief doc6eted Ci3il Case

No! ''@%9&%% before the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch QQ:, which, again, issued a restraining

order!

Pri3ate respondent then filed a motion for an alias writ of e8ecution with the MTC! An exparte motion of

petitioners for the issuance of a second restraining order was this time denied by the RTC Branch QQ:! 3 1n

;9 August $&&D, 4 the trial court, ultimately, dismissed the petition with costs against petitioners!

+n this petition, petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila Branch Q has lost 7urisdiction to enforce its

decision, dated D$ uly $&'>, in Ci3il Case No! $D<;D9, when the property in 4uestion was proclaimed an area

for priority de3elopment by the National =ousing Authority on D$ ?ecember $&'< by authority of Presidential

?ecree ;D$!

The petition is totally without merit!

+n resol3ing this issue, we only ha3e to refer to our resolution of D$ 2ebruary $&&9 in !R! No! &'%%, entitled,

)#pouses Thelma R! Masinsin, et al! 3s! Court of Appeals, et al!,) to which this case is intimately related, where

we ruled5

! ! ! The singular 4uestion common to both cases submitted for resolution of this court is the

implication of Presidential ?ecree No! $>$<, otherwise 6nown as the ).rban *and Reform

*aw,) and its amendments or ramifications embodied in Proclamation No! $'&9, as amended

by Proclamation No! $&< and Presidential ?ecree No! ;D$! All the abo3e statutes are being

implemented by the =ousing and *and .se Regulatory Board, and the =ousing and .rban

?e3elopment Coordinating Council, 1ffice of the President!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


There is a pre7udicial issue the answer to which hangs the resolution of this case! 1n May ;D,

$&&;, this Court re4uired the National =ousing Authority to submit a Comment on the status of

the program of ac4uisition by the o3ernment of the land area which includes the disputed

property, as part of the Areas for Priority ?e3elopment AP?, under the aforementioned

decrees and proclamations!

+n compliance with said order of this Court, Mr! Andres C! *ingan, Manager of the MetroManila Pro7ect ?epartment of the National =ousing Authority, submitted the following report on

the status of *ot @A, Bloc6 $D$;, located at No! $'&D 1besis #treet, Pandacan, Manila,

6nown as the Carlos Estate, an AP? site! Pertinent portions of the report read5

Please be informed that *ot @A, Bloc6 $D$; located at No! $'&D 1besis #t!,

Pandacan, Manila which is the sub7ect matter of the case and located within

the Carlos Estate declared as AP? site pursuant to Presidential

Proclamation No! $&<, is not for acquisition b" >A!

The Carlos Estate is located outside of the N=A pro7ects under the onal

+mpro3ement Pro7ect +P and Community Mortgage Program CMP! The

site, howe3er, is under the administration of the Presidential Commission on.rban Poor PC.P for ac4uisition and upgrading! Emphasis #upplied!

The abo3e information answers the uncertainty concerning the status of the alleged

negotiation for the ac4uisition by the go3ernment of certain areas in Metro Manila! The N=A is

definitely N1T ac4uiring the said lot for its program!

+t appearing that the purpose of this Petition for Re3iew is to set aside the decision of the

respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the lower courts, in order to a3oid

e3iction from the disputed premises and to be allowed to ac4uire the same allegedly under the

Community Mortgage Program of the National =ousing Authority, we find the petition without

merit and deny the same! Conse4uently, the petition is ?+#M+##E?! @

/hat immediately catches ones attention to this case is the e3ident predilection of petitioners, through different

counsel, to file pleadings, one after another, from which not e3en this Court has been spared! The utter lac6 of

merit of the complaints and petitions simply e3inces the deliberate intent of petitioners to prolong and delay the

ine3itable e8ecution of a decision that has long become final and e8ecutory!

2our times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel, try to nullify the same MTC decision before

different branches of the court, trifling with 7udicial processes! Ne3er, again, should this practice be

countenanced! 2

The lawyers oath to which we ha3e all subscribed in solemn agreement in dedicating oursel3es to the pursuit

of 7ustice, is not a mere fictile of words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that we must uphold and 6eep

in3iolable! Perhaps, it is time we are here reminded of that pledge0 thus @

*A/LER# 1AT=

+, ! ! !, do solemnly swear that + will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines0 + will

support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly

constituted authorities therein0 + will do no falsehood nor consent to its commission0 4 !ill not

!ittingl" or !illingl" pro%ote or sue an" groundless, false or unla!ful suit nor gi'e aid nor

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


consent to the sa%e@ 4 !ill not dela" an" %an#s cause for %one" or %alice and !ill conduct

%"self as a la!"er according to the best of %" :no!ledge and discretion !ith all good fidelit"

as !ell to the courts as to %" clients and 4 i%pose upon %"self this obligation 'oluntar",

!ithout an" %ental reser'ation or purpose of e'asion.

#1 =E*P ME 1?! Emphasis supplied!

/e ha3e since emphasi"ed in no uncertain terms that any act on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court,

which 3isibly tends to obstruct, per3ert, impede and degrade the administration of 7ustice is contumacious

calling for both an e8ercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of the contempt power! <

/=ERE21RE, the petition is ?+#M+##E?! Petitioners counsel of record is hereby strongly CEN#.RE? and

/ARNE? that a similar infraction of the lawyers oath in the future will be dealt with most se3erely! ?ouble

costs against petitioners!

This resolution is immediately e8ecutory!

#1 1R?ERE?!

Feliciano, idin, Ro%ero and Melo, **., concu


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

#&R& "o& 1332@ %(= 9, 1998

COMMISSIO" O" E$ECTIO"S, petitioner,

3s!

O"& TOM!S /& "O"!, !cting Presi)ing %)ge, Regiona( Tria( Cort, /ranc. 3, !((en, "ort.ernSamar, an) DIOSD!D! & !MOR, ES/E$ CU!, an) RU/E" M!#$UO!", respondents!

D!>IDE, %R&, J.:

The pi3otal issue raised in this special ci3il action for certiorari with %anda%us is whether R!A! No! <&$ 1 has

di3ested Regional Trial Courts of 7urisdiction o3er election offenses, which are punishable with

imprisonment of not e8ceeding si8 years!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The antecedents are not disputed!

+n its Minute Resolution No! &@9D< of ;& 1ctober $&&, the Commission on Elections C1ME*EC resol3ed

to file an information for 3iolation of #ection ;$i of the 1mnibus Election Code against pri3ate respondents

?iosdada Amor, a public school principal, and Esbel Chua and Ruben Magluyoan, both public school teachers,

for ha3ing engaged in partisan political acti3ities! The C1ME*EC authori"ed its Regional ?irector in Region :+++

to handle the prosecution of the cases!

2orthwith, nine informations for 3iolation of #ection ;$i of the 1mnibus Election were filed with Branch ;9 of

the Regional Trial Court of Alien, Northern #amar, and doc6eted therein as follows5

a Criminal Cases Nos! A@$%9& and A@$%%;, against pri3ate respondents

?iosdada Amor, Esbel Chua, and Ruben Magluyoan!

b Criminal Case No! A@$%%9, against pri3ate respondents Esbel Chua and

Ruben Magluyoan!

c Criminal Cases Nos! A@$%%% and A@$%%>, against pri3ate respondent

Esbel Chua only0

d Criminal Cases Nos! A@$%% to A@$%%&, against pri3ate respondent

?iosdada Amor only!

+n an 1rder issued on ;> August $&&<, respondent udge Tomas B! Noynay, as presiding 7udge of

Branch ;9, %otu proprio ordered the records of the cases to be withdrawn and directed the C1ME*EC

*aw ?epartment to file the cases with the appropriate Municipal Trial Court on the ground that pursuant to

#ection 9; of B!P! Blg! $;& as amended by R!A! No! <&$, 3 the Regional Trial Court has no 7urisdiction

o3er the cases since the ma8imum imposable penalty in each of the cases does not e8ceed si8 years of

imprisonment! Pertinent portions of the 1rder read as follows5

+t is worth pointing out that all the accused are uniformly charged for sic :iolation of #ec!

;$i of the 1mnibus Election Code, which under #ec! ;% of the same Code carries a

penalty of not less than one $ year but not more than si8 years of imprisonment and not

sub7ect to Probation plus dis4ualification to hold public office or depri3ation of the right of

suffrage!

#ec! 9$ sic of the udiciary Reorgani"ation Act of $&'D B!P! Blg! $;& as Amended by Rep!

Act! &$ sic E8panded urisdiction states5 #ec! 9;! urisdiction ( Metropolitan Trial

Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Criminal Cases ( E8cept in

cases falling within the e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts and the

#andiganbayan, the Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts and the Municipal Circuit

Trial Courts shall e8ercise5

$ E8clusi3e original 7urisdiction o3er all 3iolations of city or

municipal ordinance committed within their respecti3e

territorial 7urisdiction0 and

; E8clusi3e original 7urisdiction o3er all offenses

punishable with an imprisonment of not e8ceeding si8

years irrespecti3e of the amount or fine and regardless of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


other imposable accessory and other penalties including

the ci3il liability arising from such offenses or predicated

thereon, irrespecti3e of time sic , nature, 3alue and amount

thereof, Pro'ided , =owe3er, that in offenses including

damages to property through criminal negligence, they shall

ha3e e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction thereof!

+n light of the foregoing, this Court has therefore, no 7urisdiction o3er the cases filed

considering that the ma8imum penalty imposable did not e8ceed si8 years!

The two motions 4 for reconsideration separately filed by the C1ME*EC Regional ?irector of Region :+++

and by the C1ME*EC itself through its *egal ?epartment ha3ing been denied by the public respondent in

the 1rder of $< 1ctober $&&<,@ the petitioner filed this special ci3il action! +t contends that public

respondent )has erroneously misconstrued the pro3isions of Rep! Act No! <&$ in arguing that the

Municipal Trial Court has e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction to try and decide election offenses) because

pursuant to #ection ;' of the 1mnibus Election Code and this Courts ruling in )Alberto sic 3s! udge

uan *a3illes, r!,) Regional Trial Courts ha3e the e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction o3er election offenses!

1n $< 2ebruary $&&', we re4uired the respondents and the 1ffice of the #olicitor eneral to comment on the

petition!

+n its Manifestation of > March $&&', the 1ffice of the #olicitor eneral informs us that it is )adopting) the

instant petition on the ground that the challenged orders of public respondent )are clearly not in accordance

with e8isting laws and 7urisprudence!)

+n his Manifestation of $; March $&&', public respondent a3ers that it is the duty of counsel for pri3ate

respondents interested in sustaining the challenged orders to appear for and defend him!

+n their Comment, pri3ate respondents maintain that R!A! No! <&$ has di3ested the Regional Trial Courts of

7urisdiction o3er offenses where the imposable penalty is not more than years of imprisonment0 moreo3er,R!A! <&$ e8pressly pro3ides that all laws, decrees, and orders inconsistent with its pro3isions are deemed

repealed or modified accordingly! They then conclude that since the election offense in 4uestion is punishable

with imprisonment of not more than years, it is cogni"able by Municipal Trial Courts!

/e resol3ed to gi3e due course to the petition!

.nder #ection ;' of the 1mnibus Election Code, Regional Trial Courts ha3e e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction to

try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for 3iolation of the Code e8cept those relating to the offense

of failure to register or failure to 3ote! 2 +t reads as follows5

#ec! ;'! *urisdiction of courts! ( The regional trial court shall ha3e the e8clusi3e original

7urisdiction to try and decide any criminal action or proceedings for 3iolation of this Code,e8cept those relating to the offense of failure to register or failure to 3ote which shall be under

the 7urisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts! 2rom the decision of the courts,

appeal will lie as in other criminal cases!

Among the offenses punished under the Election Code are those enumerated in #ection ;$ thereof! The

offense allegedly committed by pri3ate respondents is co3ered by paragraph i of said #ection, thus5

#ec! ;$! Prohibited Acts! ( The following shall be guilty of an election offense5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


i 4nter'ention of public officers and e%plo"ees! ( Any officer or employee in the ci3il ser3ice,

e8cept those holding political offices0 any officer, employee, or member of the Armed 2orces

of the Philippines, or any police forces, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self@

defense units and all other para@military units that now e8ist or which may hereafter be

organi"ed who, directly or indirectly, inter3enes in any election campaign or engages in any

partisan political acti3ity, e8cept to 3ote or to preser3e public order, if he is a peace officer!

.nder #ection ;% of the Code the penalty for an election offense under the Code, e8cept that of failure to

register or failure to 3ote, is )imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than si8 years) and the

offender shall not be sub7ect to probation and shall suffer dis4ualification to hold public office and depri3ation of

the right of suffrage!

#ection 9; of B!P! Blg! $;& as amended by #ection ; of R!A! No! <&$, pro3ides as follows5

#ec! 9;! *urisdiction of Metropolitan -rial &ourt, Municipal -rial &ourts and Municipal &ircuit

-rial &ourts in &ri%inal &ases! ( E8cept in cases falling within the e8clusi3e original

7urisdiction of Regional Trial Court and of the #andiganbayan, the Metropolitan Trial Courts,

Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall e8ercise5

$ E8clusi3e original 7urisdiction o3er all 3iolations of city or municipal ordinances committed

within their respecti3e territorial 7urisdiction0 and

; E8clusi3e original 7urisdiction o3er all offenses punishable with imprisonment not

e8ceeding si8 years irrespecti3e of the amount of fine, and regardless of other imposable

accessory or other penalties, including the ci3il liability arising from such offenses or

predicated thereon, irrespecti3e of 6ind, nature, 3alue or amount thereof5 Pro'ided , ho!e'er ,

That in offenses in3ol3ing damage to property through criminal negligence, they shall ha3e

e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction thereof!

/e ha3e e8plicitly ruled in Morales '. &ourt of Appeals < that by 3irtue of the e8ception pro3ided for in the

opening sentence of #ection 9;, the e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal

Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts does not co3er those criminal cases which by specific

pro3isions of law fall within the e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction of Regional Trial Courts and of the

#andiganbayan, regardless of the penalty prescribed therefor! 1therwise stated, e3en if those e8cepted

cases are punishable by imprisonment of not e8ceeding si8 years i !e!, prision correccional, arresto

%a"or , or arresto %enor , 7urisdiction thereon is retained by the Regional Trial Courts or the

#andiganbayan, as the case may be!

Among the e8amples cited in Morales as falling within the e8ception pro3ided for in the opening sentence of

#ection 9; are cases under $ #ection ;D of B!P! Blg! $;&0 ; Article 9D of the Re3ised Penal Code, as

amended0 9 the ?ecree on +ntellectual Property0 8 and % the ?angerous ?rugs Act of $&<;, 9 as amended!

.ndoubtedly, pursuant to #ection ;' of the 1mnibus Election Code, election offenses also fall within the

e8ception!

As we stated in Morales, 7urisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by Congress! 1utside the cases

enumerated in #ection >; of Article :+++ of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power to define,

prescribe, and apportion the 7urisdiction of 3arious courts! Congress may thus pro3ide by law that a certain

class of cases should be e8clusi3ely heard and determined by one court! #uch law would be a special law and

must be construed as an e8ception to the general law on 7urisdiction of courts, namely, the udiciary Act of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


$&%', as amended, and the udiciary Reorgani"ation Act of $&'D! R!A! No! <&$ can by no means be

considered as a special law on 7urisdiction0 it is merely an amendatory law intended to amend specific sections

of the udiciary Reorgani"ation Act of $&'D! =ence, R!A! No! <&$ does nut ha3e the effect of repealing laws

3esting upon Regional Trial Courts or the #andiganbayan e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction to hear and decide the

cases therein specified! That Congress ne3er intended that R!A! No! <&$ should repeal such special

pro3isions is indubitably e3ident from the fact that it did not touch at all the opening sentence of #ection 9; of

B!P! Blg! $;& pro3iding for the e8ception!

+t is ob3ious that respondent 7udge did not read at all the opening sentence of #ection 9; of B!P! Blg! $;&, as

amended! +t is thus an opportune time, as any, to remind him, as well as other 7udges, of his duty to be studious

of the principles of law, 15 to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law

itself, 11 to be faithful to the law, and to maintain professional competence! 1

Counsel for petitioner, Atty! ose P! Balbuena, ?irector +: of petitioners *aw ?epartment, must also be

admonished for his utter carelessness in his reference to the case against udge uan *a3illes, r! +n the

motion for Reconsideration 13 he filed, with the court below, Atty! Balbuena stated5

As a matter of fact, the issue on whether the Regional Trial Court has e8clusi3e 7urisdiction

o3er election offenses is already a settled issue in the case of Alberto aldeza 's *udge

*uan a'illes, *r., A.M. o. M-*7B66, March C, B9 , where the #upreme Court succinctly

held5

A re3iew of the pertinent pro3ision of law would show that pursuant to #ec!

;> and ;< of the 1mnibus Election Code, the C1ME*EC, has the

e8clusi3e power to conduct preliminary in3estigation of all election offenses

punishable under the Code and the R-& shall ha'e the exclusi'e original

=urisdiction to tr" and decide an" cri%inal action or proceedings for 'iolation

of the sa%e! The Metropolitan, or MTC, by way of e8ception e8ercises

7urisdiction only on offenses relating to failure to register or to 3ote! Noting

that these pro3isions stand together with the pro3isions that any election

offense under the code shall be punishable with imprisonment of one $

year to si8 years and shall not be sub7ect to probation #ec! ;9,

1mnibus Election Code, !e sub%it that it is the special intention of the

&ode to 'est upon the R-& =urisdiction o'er election cases as a %atter of

exception to the general pro'isions on =urisdiction o'er cri%inal cases found

under .P. B5 b" RA D9B does not 'est upon the M-& =urisdiction o'er

cri%inal election offenses despite its expanded =urisdiction! Emphasis ours

Also, in this petition, Atty! Balbuena states5

$! This =onorable #upreme Court, in the case of )Alberto @3s@ udge uan *a3illes, r!,) ;%>

#CRA ;' in3ol3ing the same issue of 7urisdiction between the lower courts and Regional

Trial Court on election offenses, has ruled, thus5

/ith respect to the other charges, a re3iew of the Pertinent Pro3ision of *aw would show that

pursuant to #ection ;> and ;< of the 1mnibus Election Code the Comelec has the power to

conduct preliminary in3estigations all election offenses punishable under the code and the

Regional Trial Court shall ha3e the e8clusi3e original 7urisdiction to try and decide any criminal

action or proceedings for 3iolation of the same! The Metropolitan Trial Court, by way of

e8ception e8ercise 7urisdiction only on offenses relating to failure to register or to 3ote! Noting

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


that these pro3isions stands together with the pro3ision that any election offense under the

code shall be punishable with imprisonment for one $ year to si8 years and shall not be

sub7ect to probation #ection ;%, 1mnibus Election Code! /e submit that it is the special

intention of the code to 3est upon the Regional Trial Court 7urisdiction o3er election cases as

matter of e8emption to the pro3isions on 7urisdiction o3er criminal cases found under B!P! Reg!

$;&, as amended! Conse4uently, the amendment of B!P! Reg! $;& by Republic Act! No! <&$

does not 3est upon the MTC 7urisdiction o3er criminal election offenses despite its e8panded 7urisdiction!

+f Atty! Balbuena was diligent enough, he would ha3e 6nown that the correct name of the complainant

in the case referred to is neither Alberto aldeza as indicated in the motion for reconsideration

nor Alberto alone as stated in the petition, but A*BERT1 NA*?1A! Moreo3er, the case was not

reported in 3olume ;%> of the #upreme Court Reports Annotated #CRA as falsely represented in the

paragraph $ of the petition, but in 3olume ;>% of the #CRA!

/orse, in both the motion for reconsideration and the petition, Atty! Balbuena deliberately made it appear that

the 4uoted portions were findings or rulings, or, put a little differently, our own words! The truth is, the 4uoted

portion is 7ust a part of the memorandum of the Court Administrator 4uoted in the decision!

Rule $D!D; of Canon $D of the Code of Professional Responsibility 14 mandates that a lawyer shall not

6nowingly mis4uote or misrepresent the te8t of a decision or authority!

+N :+E/ 12 A** T=E 21RE1+N, the instant petition is RANTE?! The challenged orders of public

respondent udge Tomas B! Noynay of ;> August $&&< and $< 1ctober $&&< in Criminal Cases Nos! A@$%9&

and A@$%%; to A@$%%& are #ET A#+?E! Respondent udge is ?+RECTE? to try and decide said cases with

purposeful dispatch and, further, A?M1N+#=E? to faithfully comply with Canons % and $' of the Canons of

udicial Ethics and Rule 9!D$, Canon 9 of the Code of udicial Conduct!

Atty! ose P! Balbuena is A?M1N+#=E? to be more careful in the discharge of his duty to the court as a lawyer

under the Code of Professional Responsibility!

No costs!

#1 1R?ERE?!

ar'asa, &.*., Regalado, Ro%ero, ellosillo, Melo, Puno, 3itug, apunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez,

uisu%bing and Purisi%a, **., concu

7/21/2019 cases 22-36



SUPREME COURTManila

2+R#T ?+:+#+1N

#&R& "o& $;3@429 October 9, 198<

E"C!R"!CIO" /!"O#O", 'OSIM! MU"O', an) D!>IDI"! MU"O', petitioners,

3s!

ME$COR 'ER"!, CO"SE%O 'ER"! DE COR"E$IO, R!"CISCO 'ER"!, an) t.e O"& CIPRI!"O>!ME"T!, %R&, %)ge o t.e Cort o irst Instance o "egros Orienta( /ranc. III&

CRU', J.:

+ts unbelie3able! The original decision in this case was rendered by the cadastral court way bac6 on 2ebruary

&, $&;, sixt" one "ears ago! A motion to amend that decision was filed on March , $&><, thirt" one "ears

later ! This was followed by an amended petition for re3iew of the 7udgment on March $', $&><, and an

opposition thereto on March ;, $&><! 1n 1ctober $$, $&<$, or after fourteen "ears, a motion to dismiss the

petition was filed! The petition was dismissed on ?ecember ', $&<$, and the motion for reconsideration was

denied on 2ebruary $%, $&<;! 1 The petitioners then came to us on certiorari to 4uestion the orders of the respondent 7udge!

These dates are not typographical errors! /hat is in3ol3ed here are errors of law and lawyers!

The respondent court dismissed the petition for re3iew of the decision rendered in $&; on the ground that it

had been filed out of time, indeed thirty one years too late! *aches, it was held, had operated against the

petitioners! 3

The petitioners contend that the said 7udgment had not yet become final and e8ecutory because the land in

dispute had not yet been registered in fa3or of the pri3ate respondents! The said 7udgment would become so

only after one year from the issuance of the decree of registration! +f any one was guilty of laches, it was the

pri3ate respondents who had failed to enforce the 7udgment by ha3ing the land registered in their the pursuant

thereto! 4

2or their part, the pri3ate respondents argue that the decision of 2ebruary &, $&;, became final and e8ecutory

after 9D days, same not ha3ing been appealed by the petitioners during that period! They slept on their rights

for thirt" one "ears before it occurred to them to 4uestion the 7udgment of the cadastral court! +n fact, their

alleged predecessor@in@interest, 2ilomeno Banogon, li3ed for nineteen %ore "ears after the $&; decision and

did not see fit to challenge it until his death in $&%>! The herein petitioners themsel3es waited another t!el'e

"ears, or until $&> <, to file their petition for re3iew!

@

/hile arguing that they were not guilty of laches because the $&; decision had not yet become final and

e8ecutory because the land sub7ect thereof had not yet been registered, the petitioners rationali"e5 )+f an

aggrie3ed party is allowed the remedy of re@opening the case within one year after the issuance of the decree,

why should the same party be denied this remedy before the decree is issued 2

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/hy not indeed /hy then did they not file their petition earlier /hy do they now pretend that they ha3e all

the time in the world because the land has not yet been registered and the one@year reglementary period has

not yet e8pired

Thin6ing to support their position, the petitioners cite Ri'era '. Moran < where it was held5

!!! +t is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 9' of the *and

Registration Act pro3ides that a petition for re3iew of such a decree on the grounds of fraud

must be filed )within one year after entry of the decree!) i3ing this pro3ision a literal

interpretation, it %a" first blush see% that the petition for re'ie! cannot be presented until the

final decree has been entered. ut on further reflection, it is ob'ious that such could not ha'e

been the intention of the egislatureand that what it meant would ha3e been better e8pressed

by stating that such petitioners must be presented before the e8piration of one year from the

entry of the decree! #tatutes must be gi3en a reasonable construction and there can be no

possible reason for requiring the co%plaining part" to !ait until the final decree is entered

before urging his clai% of fraud. /e therefore hold that a petition for re3iew under section

9', supra, may be filed at an" ti%e the rendition of the court#s decision and before the

e8piration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration! Emphasissupplied!

A reading thereof will show that it is against their contentions and that under this doctrine they should not ha3e

delayed in asserting their claim of fraud! Their delay was not only for thirty one da"s but for thirty

one "ears.*aches bars their petition now! Their position is clearly contrary to law and logic and to e3en ordinary

common sense!

This Court has repeatedly reminded litigants and lawyers ali6e5

)*itigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is assent essential to an

effecti3e and efficient administration of 7ustice that, once a 7udgment has become final, the

winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, depri3ed of the fruits of the 3erdict! Courts

must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result! Constituted as

they are to put an end to contro3ersies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong

them!) 8

There should be a greater awareness on the part of litigants that the time of the 7udiciary,

much more so of this Court, is too 3aluable to be wasted or frittered away by efforts, far

from commendable, to e3ade the operation of a decision final and e8ecutory, especially

so, where, as shown in this case, the clear and manifest absence of any right calling for

3indication, is 4uite ob3ious and indisputable! 9

This appeal moreo3er, should fail, predicated as it is on an insubstantial ob7ection bereft

of any persuasi3e force! ?efendants had to display ingenuity to con7ure a technicality!

2rom Alonso 3! :illamor, a $&$D decision, we ha3e left no doubt as to our disappro3al ofsuch a practice! The aim of a lawsuit is to render 7ustice to the parties according to law!

Procedural rules are precisely designed to accomplish such a worthy ob7ecti3e!

Necessarily, therefore, any attempt to per3ert the ends for which they are intended

deser3es condemnation! /e ha3e done so before! /e do so again! 15

Regarding the argument that the pri3ate respondents too6 fourteen years to mo3e for the dismissal of the

petition for re3iew, it suffices to point out that an opposition thereto had been made as early as March ;, $&><,

or nine days after the filing of the petition! 11 Moreo3er, it was for the petitioners to mo3e for the hearing of the petition instead of

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


waiting for the pri3ate respondents to as6 for its dismissal! After all, they were the parties as6ing for relief, and it was the pri3ate respondents

who were in possession of the land in dispute!

1ne reason why there is a degree of public distrust for lawyers is the way some of them misinterpret the law to

the point of distortion in a cunning effort to achie3e their purposes! By doing so, they frustrate the ends of

7ustice and at the same time lessen popular faith in the legal profession as the sworn upholders of the law!

/hile this is not to say that e3ery wrong interpretation of the law is to be condemned, as indeed most of themare only honest errors, this Court must e8press its disappro3al of the adroit and intentional misreading

designed precisely to circum3ent or 3iolate it!

As officers of the court, lawyers ha3e a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of 7ustice! They do

not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the wor6load of the 7udiciary, especially this

Court, which is burdened enough as it is! A 7udicious study of the facts and the law should ad3ise them when a

case, such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested 7udicial doc6ets!

They do not ad3ance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lac6 of merit do

not deser3e the attention of the courts!

This petition is ?+#M+##E?, with costs against the petitioners! This decision is immediately e8ecutory! +t is so

ordered!

-eehan:ee, &.*., ar'asa and Paras, **., concur.

<anca"co, *., is on lea'e.

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


public of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

>ICE"TE SOTTO %anar= 1, 1949

In re >ICE"TE SOTTO, for contempt of court!

3icente Sotto in his o!n behalf.

ERI!, J.6

This is a proceeding for contempt of our court against the respondent Atty! :icente #otto, who was re4uired by

their Court on ?ecember <, $&%', to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt to court for

ha3ing issued a written statement in connection with the decision of this Court in 4n re Angel Parazo for

contempt of court, which statement, as published in the Manila Times and other daily newspapers of the

locality, reads as follows5

As author of the Press 2reedom *aw Republic Act No! >9! interpreted by the #upreme Court in the

case of Angel Para"o, reporter of a local daily, who now has to suffer 9D days imprisonment, for his

refusal to di3ulge the source of a news published in his paper, + regret to say that our =igh Tribunal has

not only erroneously interpreted said law, but that it is once more putting in e3idence the incompetency

of narrow mindedness o the ma7ority of its members, +n the wa6e of so many mindedness of the

ma7ority deliberately committed during these last years, + belie3e that the only remedy to put an end to

so much e3il, is to change the members of the #upreme Court! To his effect, + announce that one of

the first measures, which as its ob7ects the complete reorgani"ation of the #upreme Court! As it is now

constituted, a constant peril to liberty and democracy! +t need be said loudly, 3ery loudly, so that e3en

the deaf may hear5 the #upreme Court 3ery of today is a far cry from the impregnable bulwar6 of

ustice of those memorable times of Cayetano Arellano, :ictorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and otherlearned 7urists who were the honor and glory of the Philippine udiciary!

.pon his re4uest, the respondent was granted ten days more besides the fi3e originally gi3en him to file his

answer, and although his answer was filed after the e8piration of the period of time gi3en him the said answer

was admitted! This Court could ha3e rendered a 7udgment for contempt after considering his answer, because

he does not deny the authenticity of the statement as it has been published! But, in order to gi3e the

respondent ample opportunity to defend himself or 7ustify the publication of such libelous statement, the case

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


was set for hearing or oral argument on anuary %, the hearing being later postponed to anuary $D, $&%&! As

the respondent did not appear at the date set for hearing, the case was submitted for decision!

+n his answer, the respondent does not deny ha3ing published the abo3e 4uoted threat, and intimidation as well

as false and calumnious charges against this #upreme Court! But he therein contends that under section $9,

Article :+++ of the Constitution, which confers upon this #upreme Court the power to promulgate rules

concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, )this Court has no power to impose correctional penalties uponthe citi"ens, and that the #upreme Court can only impose fines and imprisonment by 3irtue of a law, and has to

be promulgated by Congress with the appro3al of the Chief E8ecuti3e!) And he also alleges in his answer that

)in the e8ercise 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 ma7ority of the honorable

members of this high Tribunal, who, in his opinion, erroneously decided the Para"o case0 but he has not

attac6ed, or intended to attac6 the honesty or integrity of any one! The other arguments set forth by the

respondent in his defenses obser3e no consideration!

Rules % of the rules promulgated by this court does not punish as for contempt of court an act which was not

punishable as such under the law and the inherent powers of the court to punish for contempt! The pro3isions

of section $ and 9 of said Rule % are a mere reproduction of section ;9$ and ;9; of the old Code of Ci3il

Procedure, Act No! $&D, amended, in connection with the doctrine laid down by this Court on the inherentpower if the superior courts to punish for contempt is se3eral cases, among them 4n re ell", 9> Phil!, &%%! That

the power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts of superior statue, is a doctrine or principle uniformly

accepted and applied by the courts of last resort in the .nited #tates, which is applicable in this 7urisdiction

since our Constitution and courts of 7ustice are patterned as e8pounded in American urisprudence is as

follows5

The power of inflicting punishment upon persons guilty of contempt of court may be regarded as an

essential element of 7udicial authority, +T is possessed as a part of the 7udicial authority granted to

courts created by the Constitution of the .nited #tates or by the Constitutions of the se3eral states! +t

is a power said to be inherent in all courts general 7urisdiction, whether they are #tate or 2ederal0 such

power e8ists in courts of general 7urisdiction independently of any special e8press grant of statute! +n

many instances the right of certain courts of tribunals to punish for contempt is e8pressly bestowed bystatue, but such statutory authori"ation is unnecessary, so far as the courts of general 7urisdiction are

concerned, and in general adds nothing statutory authority may be necessary as concerns the inferior

courts statutory authority may be necessary to empower them to act! Contempt, $; ur!, pp! %$',

%$&!

+n conformity with the principle enunciated in the abo3e 4uotation from American urisprudence, this Court,

in 4n re ell" , held the following5

The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has

always been considered as misbeha3ior, tending to obstruct the administration of 7ustice, and sub7ects

such persons to contempt proceedings! Parties ha3e a constitutional right to ha3e their fairly in court,

by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public clamor! E3ery citi"en has a profoundpersonal interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to ha3e 7ustice administered by the

courts, under the protection and forms of law, free from outside coercion or interference! Any

publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the upon court, the parties, the officers of the court, the

counsel, etc!, with reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the contro3ersy, is

contempt of court and is punishable! The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all court! The

summary power to commit and punish for contempt tending to obstructed or degrade the

administration of 7ustice, as inherent in courts as essential to the e8ecution of their powers and to the

maintenance of their authority is a part of the law of the land! 4n re-elly, 9> Phil!, &%%, &%>!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the

court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated0 because if well founded it may enlighten the court

and contribute to the correction of an error if committed0 but if it is not well ta6en and ob3iously erroneous, it

should, in no way, influence the court in re3ersing or modifying its decision! =ad the respondent in the present

case limited himself to as statement that our decision is wrong or that our construction of the intention of the

law is not correct, because it is different from what he, as proponent of the original bill which became a law had

intended, his criticism might in that case be tolerated, for it could not in any way influence the final disposition of the Para"o case by the court0 inasmuch as it is of 7udicial notice that the bill presented by the respondent was

amended by both =ouses of Congress, and the clause )unless the court finds that such re3elation is demanded

by the interest of the #tate) was added or inserted0 and that, as the Act was passed by Congress and not by

any particular member thereof, the intention of Congress and not that of the respondent must be the one to be

determined by this Court in applying said act!

But in the abo3e@4uoted written statement which he caused to be published in the press, the respondent does

not merely critici"e or comment on the decision of the Para"o case, which was then and still is pending

reconsideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Para"o! =e not only intends to intimidate the members of

this Court with the presentation of a bill in the ne8t Congress, of which he is one of the members, reorgani"ing

the #upreme Court and reducing the members, reorgani"ing the #upreme Court and reducing the members of

ustices from ele3en to se3en, so as to change the members of this Court which decided the Para"o case, whoaccording to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in order to influence the final decision of said

case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct the administration of 7ustice! But the respondent also

attac6s the honesty and integrity of this Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the ustices of this Court

into disrepute and degrading the administration of 7ustice, for in his abo3e@4uoted statement he says5

+n the wa6e of so many blunders and in7ustices deliberately committed during these last years, +

belie3e that the only remedy to put an end to so much e3il, is to change the members of the #upreme

Court! To this effect, + announce that one of the first measures, which + will introduce in the coming

congressional sessions, will ha3e as its ob7ect the complete reorgani"ation of the #upreme Court! As it

is now the #upreme Court of today constitutes a constant peril to liberty and democracy!

To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately )so many blundersand in7ustices,) that is to say, that it has been deciding in fa3or of one party 6nowing that the law and 7ustice is

on the part of the ad3erse party and not on the one in whose fa3or the decision was rendered, in many cases

decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty

and integrity of the members of this Court, and conse4uently to lower or degrade the administration of 7ustice

by this Court! The #upreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwar6 to which the

2ilipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grie3ances or protection of their rights when these are

trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court

and belie3e that they cannot e8pect 7ustice therefrom, they might be dri3en to ta6e the law into their own hands,

and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result! As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty!

:icente #otto, li6e any 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 ta6en as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of

7ustice! Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty wouldbe resting on a 3ery sha6y foundation!

Respondents assertion in his answer that )he made his statement in the press with the utmost good faith and

without intention of offending any of the ma7ority of the honorable members of this high Tribunal,) if true may

mitigate but not e8empt him from liability for contempt of court0 but it is belied by his acts and statements during

the pendency of this proceeding! The respondent in his petition of ?ecember $$, alleges that ustice regorio

Perfecto is the principal promoter of this proceeding for contempt, con3eying thereby the idea that this Court

acted in the case through the instigation of Mr! ustice Perfecto!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+t is true that the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and the press must be protected to its fullest

e8tent, but license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the citi"en should not be confused with liberty in its

true sense! As important as the maintenance of an unmu""led press and the free e8ercise of the right of the

citi"en, is the maintenance of the independence of the 7udiciary! As udge =olmes 3ery appropriately said .!

# 's #ullens $&;&, 9 2ed! ;nd, ;9D, ;9', ;9&5 )The administration of 7ustice and the freedom of the press,

though separate and distinct, are e4ually sacred, and neither should be 3iolated by the other! The press and

the courts ha3e correlati3e rights and duties and should cooperate to uphold the principles of the Constitutionand laws, from which the former recei3es its prerogati3es and the latter its 7urisdiction! The right of legitimate

publicity must be scrupulously recogni"ed and care ta6en at all times to a3oid impinging upon it! +n a clear case

where it is necessary, in order to dispose of 7udicial business unhampered by publications which reasonably

tend to impair the impartiality of 3erdicts, or otherwise obstruct the administration of 7ustice, this court will not

hesitate to e8ercise its undoubted power to punish for contempt! This Court must be permitted to proceed with

the disposition if its business in an orderly manner free from outside interference obstructi3e of its constitutional

functions! This right will be insisted upon as 3ital to an impartial court, and, as a last resort, as a indi3idual

e8ercises the right of self@defense, it will act to preser3e its e8istence as an unpre7udiced tribunal! ! ! !)

+t is also well settled that an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his

conduct and communication to the courts, he may be remo3ed from office or stric6en from the roll of attorneys

as being guilty of flagrant misconduct $< *! R! A! N!#!, >', >&%!

+n 3iew of all the foregoing, we find the respondent Atty! :icente #otto guilty of contempt of this Court by 3irtue

of the abo3e@4uoted publication, and he is hereby sentenced to pay, within the period of fifteen days from the

promulgation of this 7udgment, a fine of P$,DDD, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insol3ency!

The respondent is also hereby re4uired to appear, within the same period, and show cause to this Court why

he should not be disbarred form practicing as an attorney@at@law in any of the courts of this Republic, for said

publication and the following statements made by him during the pendency of the case against Angel Para"o

for contempt of Court!

+n his statement to the press as published in the Manila -i%es in its issue of ?ecember &, $&%', the respondent

said )The #upreme Court can send me to 7ail, but it cannot close my mouth0 ) and in his other statementpublished on ?ecember $D, $&%', in the same paper, he stated among others5 )+t is not the imprisonment that

is degrading, but the cause of the imprisonment!) +n his Ri"al day speech at the Abellana =igh #chool in Cebu,

published on anuary 9, $&%&, in the Manila 1ail" ulletin, the respondent said that )there was more freedom

of speech when American ustices sat in the Tribunal than now when it is composed of our countrymen0)

reiterated that )e3en if it succeeds in placing him behind bars, the court can not close his mouth,) and added5 )+

would consider imprisonment a precious heritage to lea3e for those who would follow me because the cause is

noble and lofty!) And the Manila &hronicle of anuary > published the statement of the respondent in Cebu to

the effect that this Court )acted with malice) in citing him to appear before this Court on anuary % when )the

members of this Court 6now that + came here on 3acation!) +n all said statements the respondent misrepresents

to the public the cause of the charge against him for contempt of court! =e says that the cause is for critici"ing

the decision of this Court in said Para"o case in defense of the freedom of the press, when in truth and in fact

he is charged with intending to interfere and influence the final disposition of said case through intimidation andfalse accusations against this #upreme Court! #o ordered!

Moran, &.*., Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, engzon, riones, -uason, Monte%a"or and Re"es, **., concur

7/21/2019 cases 22-36



SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

!&M& "o& 15;15;4;SC Marc. 8, 511

RE6 $ETTER O TE UP $!7 !CU$T E"TIT$ED FRESTORI"# I"TE#RIT6 ! ST!TEME"T / TE!CU$T O TE U"I>ERSIT O TE PI$IPPI"ES CO$$E#E O $!7 O" TE !$$E#!TIO"S OP$!#I!RISM !"D MISREPRESE"T!TIO" I" TE SUPREME COURTF

? E C + # + 1 N

$EO"!RDO;DE C!STRO, J.:

2or disposition of the Court are the 3arious submissions of the 9< respondent law professors $ in response tothe Resolution dated 1ctober $&, ;D$D the #how Cause Resolution, directing them to show cause why theyshould not be disciplined as members of the Bar for 3iolation of specific pro3isions of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility enumerated therein!

At the outset, it must be stressed that the #how Cause Resolution clearly doc6ets this as an administrati3ematter, not a special ci3il action for indirect contempt under Rule <$ of the Rules of Court, contrary to the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt1


7/21/2019 cases 22-36


dissenting opinion of Associate ustice Maria *ourdes P! A! #ereno ustice #ereno to the said 1ctober $&,;D$D #how Cause Resolution! Neither is this a disciplinary proceeding grounded on an allegedly irregularlyconcluded finding of indirect contempt as intimated by Associate ustice Conchita Carpio Morales usticeMorales in her dissenting opinions to both the 1ctober $&, ;D$D #how Cause Resolution and the presentdecision!

/ith the nature of this case as purely a bar disciplinary proceeding firmly in mind, the Court finds that with thee8ception of one respondent whose compliance was ade4uate and another who manifested he was not amember of the Philippine Bar, the submitted e8planations, being mere denials andJor tangential to the issues athand, are decidedly unsatisfactory! The proffered defenses e3en more urgently behoo3e this Court to call theattention of respondent law professors, who are members of the Bar, to the relationship of their duties as suchunder the Code of Professional Responsibility to their ci3il rights as citi"ens and academics in our free anddemocratic republic!

The pro3isions of the Code of Professional Responsibility in3ol3ed in this case are as follows5

CAN1N $ ( A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law andlegal processes!

R.*E $!D; @ A lawyer shall not counsel or abet acti3ities aimed at defiance of the law or at

lessening confidence in the legal system!

CAN1N $D @ A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court!

Rule $D!D$ @ A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court0 norshall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice!

Rule $D!D; @ A lawyer shall not 6nowingly mis4uote or misrepresent the contents of paper, thelanguage or the argument of opposing counsel, or the te8t of a decision or authority, or6nowingly cite as law a pro3ision already rendered inoperati3e by repeal or amendment, orassert as a fact that which has not been pro3ed!

Rule $D!D9 @ A lawyer shall obser3e the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them todefeat the ends of 7ustice!

CAN1N $$ ( A lawyer shall obser3e and maintain the respect due to the courts and to 7udicial officers andshould insist on similar conduct by others!

R.*E $$!D> A lawyer shall submit grie3ances against a udge to the proper authorities only!

CAN1N $9 ( A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends toinfluence, or gi3es the appearance of influencing the court!

Established 7urisprudence will undeniably support our 3iew that when lawyers spea6 their minds, they muste3er be mindful of their sworn oath to obser3e ethical standards of their profession, and in particular, a3oid foul

and abusi3e language to condemn the #upreme Court, or any court for that matter, for a decision it hasrendered, especially during the pendency of a motion for such decisionFs reconsideration! The accusation ofplagiarism against a member of this Court is not the real issue here but rather this plagiarism issue has beenused to deflect e3eryoneFs attention from the actual concern of this Court to determine by respondentsFe8planations whether or not respondent members of the Bar ha3e crossed the line of decency and acceptableprofessional conduct and speech and 3iolated the Rules of Court through improper inter3ention or interferenceas third parties to a pending case! Preliminarily, it should be stressed that it was respondents themsel3es whocalled upon the #upreme Court to act on their #tatement,; which they formally submitted, through ?ean Mar3icM!:!2! *eonen ?ean *eonen, for the CourtFs proper disposition! Considering the defenses of freedom ofspeech and academic freedom in3o6ed by the respondents, it is worth discussing here that the legal reasoning



7/21/2019 cases 22-36


used in the past by this Court to rule that freedom of e8pression is not a defense in administrati3e casesagainst lawyers for using intemperate speech in open court or in court submissions can similarly be applied torespondentsF in3ocation of academic freedom! +ndeed, it is precisely because respondents are not merelylawyers but lawyers who teach law and mould the minds of young aspiring attorneys that respondentsF ownnon@obser3ance of the Code of Professional Responsibility, e3en if purportedly moti3ated by the purest ofintentions, cannot be ignored nor glossed o3er by this Court!

To fully appreciate the gra3e repercussions of respondentsF actuations, it is apropos to re3isit the factualantecedents of this case!

BAC-R1.N? 12 T=E CA#E

Antecedent 2acts and Proceedings

1n April ;', ;D$D, the ponencia of Associate ustice Mariano del Castillo ustice ?el Castillo in :inuya, et al!3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary !R! No! $;;9D was promulgated! 1n May 9$, ;D$D, the counsel9 for :inuya, et al !the )Malaya *olas), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the :inuya decision, raising solely the followinggrounds5

+! 1ur own constitutional and 7urisprudential histories re7ect this =onorable CourtsF sic assertion thatthe E8ecuti3eFs foreign policy prerogati3es are 3irtually unlimited0 precisely, under the rele3ant 7urisprudence and constitutional pro3isions, such prerogati3es are proscribed by international humanrights and humanitarian standards, including those pro3ided for in the rele3ant internationalcon3entions of which the Philippines is a party!%

++! This =onorable Court has confused diplomatic protection with the broader, if fundamental,responsibility of states to protect the human rights of its citi"ens S especially where the rights assertedare sub7ect of erga omnes obligations and pertain to 7us cogens norms!>

1n uly $&, ;D$D, counsel for the Malaya *olas, Attys! =! =arry *! Ro4ue, r! Atty! Ro4ue and RomelRegalado Bagares Atty! Bagares, filed a #upplemental Motion for Reconsideration in !R! No! $;;9D, wherethey posited for the first time their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration of the :inuyadecision! Among other arguments, Attys! Ro4ue and Bagares asserted that5

+!

+N T=E 2+R#T P*ACE, +T +# =+=*L +MPR1PER 21R T=+# =1N1RAB*E C1.RTF# .?MENT 12 APR+*;', ;D$D T1 P*A+AR+E AT *EA#T T=REE #1.RCE# S AN ART+C*E P.B*+#=E? +N ;DD& +N T=E LA*E*A/ 1.RNA* 12 +NTERNAT+1NA* *A/, A B11- P.B*+#=E? BL T=E CAMBR+?E .N+:ER#+TLPRE## +N ;DD> AN? AN ART+C*E P.B*+#=E? +N ;DD +N T=E CA#E /E#TERN RE#ER:E 1.RNA* 12+NTERNAT+1NA* *A/ S AN? MA-E +T APPEAR T=AT T=E#E #1.RCE# #.PP1RT T=E .?MENTF# AR.MENT# 21R ?+#M+##+N T=E +N#TANT PET+T+1N /=EN +N TR.T=, T=E P*A+AR+E?#1.RCE# E:EN MA-E A #TR1N CA#E 21R T=E PET+T+1NF# C*A+M#!<

They also claimed that )in this contro3ersy, the e3idence bears out the fact not only of e8tensi3e plagiarismbut of sic also of twisting the true intents of the plagiari"ed sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of

the assailed udgment for denying the Petition!)'

According to Attys! Ro4ue and Bagares, the wor6s allegedly plagiari"ed in the :inuya decision were namely5$ E3an ! Criddle and E3an 2o8@?ecentFs article )A 2iduciary Theory of us Cogens0)& ; Christian ! TamsFboo6 Enforcing Erga 1mnes 1bligations in +nternational *aw0$D and 9 Mar6 EllisF article )Brea6ing the #ilence51n Rape as an +nternational Crime!) $$

1n the same day as the filing of the #upplemental Motion for Reconsideration on uly $&, ;D$D, 7ournalists Aries C! Rufo and Purple #! Romero posted an article, entitled )#C 7ustice plagiari"ed parts of ruling on comfort





















7/21/2019 cases 22-36


women,) on the Newsbrea6 website!$; The same article appeared on the MA News T: website also on uly$&, ;D$D!$9

1n uly ;;, ;D$D, Atty! Ro4ueFs column, entitled )Plagiari"ed and Twisted,) appeared in the Manila #tandardToday!$% +n the said column, Atty! Ro4ue claimed that Prof! E3an Criddle, one of the authors purportedly notproperly ac6nowledged in the :inuya decision, confirmed that his wor6, co@authored with Prof! E3an 2o8@?ecent, had been plagiari"ed! Atty! Ro4ue 4uoted Prof! CriddleFs response to the post by ulian -u regardingthe news repor t$> on the alleged plagiarism in the international law blog, 1pinio uris! Prof! Criddle respondedto -uFs blog entry in this wise5

The newspaperFs$ plagiarism claims are based on a motion for reconsideration filed yesterday with thePhilippine #upreme Court yesterday! The motion is a3ailable here5

http5JJharryro4ue!comJ;D$DJD<J$'Jsupplemental@motion@alleging@plagiarism@in@the@supreme@courtJ

The motion suggests that the CourtFs decision contains thirty@four sentences and citations that are identical tosentences and citations in my ;DD& L+* article co@authored with E3an 2o8@?ecent! Professor 2o8@?ecentand + were unaware of the petitionersF plagiarism allegations until after the motion was filed today!

#pea6ing for myself, the most troubling aspect of the courtFs 7us cogens discussion is that it implies that theprohibitions against crimes against humanity, se8ual sla3ery, and torture are not 7us cogens norms! 1ur articleemphatically asserts the opposite! The #upreme CourtFs decision is a3ailablehere5http5JJsc!7udiciary!go3!phJ7urisprudenceJ;D$DJapril;D$DJ$;;9D!htm$<

1n e3en date, uly ;;, ;D$D, ustice ?el Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the charge ofplagiarism contained in the #upplemental Motion for Reconsideration!$'

+n a letter dated uly ;9, ;D$D, another purportedly plagiari"ed author in the :inuya decision, ?r! Mar6 Ellis,wrote the Court, to wit5

Lour =onours5

+ write concerning a most delicate issue that has come to my attention in the last few days!

Much as + regret to raise this matter before your esteemed Court, + am compelled, as a 4uestion of the integrityof my wor6 as an academic and as an ad3ocate of human rights and humanitarian law, to ta6e e8ception to thepossible unauthori"ed use of my law re3iew article on rape as an international crime in your esteemed CourtFsudgment in the case of :inuya et al! 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary et al! !R! No! $;;9D, udgment of ;' April;D$D!

My attention was called to the udgment and the issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine chapter of the#outheast Asia Media *egal ?efence +nitiati3e #EAM*?+,$& an affiliate of the *ondon@based Media *egal?efence +nitiati3e M*?+, where + sit as trustee!

+n particular, + am concerned about a large part of the e8tensi3e discussion in footnote >, pp! ;<@;', of the said

udgment of your esteemed Court! + am also concerned that your esteemed Court may ha3e misread thearguments + made in the article and employed them for cross purposes! This would be ironic since the articlewas written precisely to argue for the appropriate legal remedy for 3ictims of war crimes, genocide, and crimesagainst humanity!

+ belie3e a full copy of my article as published in the Case /estern Reser3e ournal of +nternational *aw in;DD has been made a3ailable to your esteemed Court! + trust that your esteemed Court will ta6e the time tocarefully study the arguments + made in the article!

+ would appreciate recei3ing a response from your esteemed Court as to the issues raised by this letter!










http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm












http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/





7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/ith respect,

#gd!?r! Mar6 Ellis;D

+n Memorandum 1rder No! 9>@;D$D issued on uly ;<, ;D$D, the Court formed the Committee on Ethics and

Ethical #tandards the Ethics Committee pursuant to #ection $9, Rule ; of the +nternal Rules of the #upremeCourt! +n an En Banc Resolution also dated uly ;<, ;D$D, the Court referred the uly ;;, ;D$D letter of ustice?el Castillo to the Ethics Committee! The matter was subse4uently doc6eted as A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C!

1n August ;, ;D$D, the Ethics Committee re4uired Attys! Ro4ue and Bagares to comment on the letter ofustice ?el Castillo!;$

1n August &, ;D$D, a statement dated uly ;<, ;D$D, entitled )Restoring +ntegrity5 A #tatement by the 2aculty of the .ni3ersity of the Philippines College of *aw on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the#upreme Court) the #tatement, was posted in Newsbrea6Fs website;; and on Atty! Ro4ueFs blog!;9 A reportregarding the statement also appeared on 3arious on@line news sites, such as the MA News T:;% and the #un#tar ;> sites, on the same date! The statement was li6ewise posted at the .ni3ersity of the Philippines College of *awFs bulletin board allegedly on August $D, ;D$D; and at said collegeFs website!;<

1n August $$, ;D$D, ?ean *eonen submitted a copy of the #tatement of the .ni3ersity of the PhilippinesCollege of *aw 2aculty .P *aw faculty to the Court, through Chief ustice Renato C! Corona Chief usticeCorona! The co3er letter dated August $D, ;D$D of ?ean *eonen read5

The =onorable#upreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines

Through5 =on! Renato C! CoronaChief ustice

#ub7ect5 #tatement of facultyfrom the .P College of *awon the Plagiarism in the case of

:inuya 3 E8ecuti3e #ecretary

Lour =onors5

/e attach for your information and proper disposition a statement signed by thirty@eight 9' ;'members of thefaculty of the .P College of *aw! /e hope that its points could be considered by the #upreme Court en banc!

Respectfully,

#gd!Mar3ic M!:!2! *eonen?ean and Professor of *aw

Emphases supplied!

The copy of the #tatement attached to the abo3e@4uoted letter did not contain the actual signatures of thealleged signatories but only stated the names of 9< .P *aw professors with the notation #?! appearingbeside each name! 2or con3enient reference, the te8t of the .P *aw faculty #tatement is reproduced here5

RESTORI"# I"TE#RIT




















7/21/2019 cases 22-36


A #TATEMENT BL T=E 2AC.*TL 12T=E .N+:ER#+TL 12 T=E P=+*+PP+NE# C1**EE 12 *A/

1N T=E A**EAT+1N# 12 P*A+AR+#M AN? M+#REPRE#ENTAT+1N+N T=E #.PREME C1.RT

An e8traordinary act of in7ustice has again been committed against the bra3e 2ilipinas who had suffered abuseduring a time of war! After they courageously came out with their 3ery personal stories of abuse and sufferingas )comfort women), waited for almost two decades for any meaningful relief from their own go3ernment aswell as from the go3ernment of apan, got their hopes up for a semblance of 7udicial recourse in the case of:inuya 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary, !R! No! $;;9D ;' April ;D$D, they only had these hopes crushed by asingularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the =ighest Court of the land!

+t is within this frame that the 2aculty of the .ni3ersity of the Philippines College of *aw 3iews the charge thatan Associate ustice of the #upreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in :inuya 3! E8ecuti3e#ecretary! The plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the indi3idual scholars whose wor6ha3e been appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the integrity and credibility of thePhilippine udicial #ystem!

+n common parlance, plagiarismF is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another personFs wor6 as oneFsown! +n the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst! +t constitutes a ta6ing of someone elseFs

ideas and e8pressions, including all the effort and creati3ity that went into committing such ideas ande8pressions into writing, and then ma6ing it appear that such ideas and e8pressions were originally created bythe ta6er! +t is dishonesty, pure and simple! A 7udicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one thatallows dishonesty! #ince all 7udicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the#upreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest means! E3idently, this is a complete per3ersionand falsification of the ends of 7ustice!

A comparison of the :inuya decision and the original source material shows that the ponente merely copiedselect portions of other legal writersF wor6s and interspersed them into the decision as if they were his own,original wor6! .nder the circumstances, howe3er, because the ?ecision has been promulgated by the Court,the ?ecision now becomes the CourtFs and no longer 7ust the ponenteFs! Thus the Court also bears theresponsibility for the ?ecision! +n the absence of any mention of the original writersF names and the publicationsfrom which they came, the thing spea6s for itself!

#o far there ha3e been unsatisfactory responses from the ponente of this case and the spo6esman of theCourt!

+t is argued, for e8ample, that the inclusion of the footnotes from the original articles is a reference to theprimaryF sources relied upon! This cursory e8planation is not acceptable, because the original authorsF writingsand the effort they put into finding and summari"ing those primary sources are precisely the sub7ect ofplagiarism! The inclusion of the footnotes together with portions of their writings in fact aggra3ates, instead ofmitigates, the plagiarism since it pro3ides additional e3idence of a deliberate intention to appropriate theoriginal authorsF wor6 of organi"ing and analy"ing those primary sources!

+t is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot be e8pected to be familiar with all legal and scholarly 7ournals! This is also not acceptable, because personal unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands correctand careful attribution and citation of the material relied upon! +t is a matter of diligence and competence

e8pected of all Magistrates of the =ighest Court of the *and!

But a far more serious matter is the ob7ection of the original writers, Professors E3an Criddle and E3an 2o8@?escent, that the =igh Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their wor6 entitled )A 2iduciary Theoryof us Cogens,) the main source of the plagiari"ed te8t! +n this article they argue that the classification of thecrimes of rape, torture, and se8ual sla3ery as crimes against humanity ha3e attained the status of 7us cogens,ma6ing it obligatory upon the #tate to see6 remedies on behalf of its aggrie3ed citi"ens! Let, the :inuyadecision uses parts of the same article to arri3e at the contrary conclusion! This e8acerbates the intellectual

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


dishonesty of copying wor6s without attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copyingwor6s in order to mislead and decei3e!

The case is a potential landmar6 decision in +nternational *aw, because it deals with #tate liability andresponsibility for personal in7ury and damage suffered in a time of war, and the role of the in7ured partiesF home#tates in the pursuit of remedies against such in7ury or damage! National courts rarely ha3e such opportunitiesto ma6e an international impact! That the petitioners were 2ilipino )comfort women) who suffered from horrificabuse during the #econd /orld /ar made it incumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them e3erysolicitude! But instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost se3enyears, obli3ious to the deaths of many of the petitioners see6ing 7ustice from the Court! /hen it dismissedthe 3inu"a petition based on misrepresented and plagiari"ed materials, the Court decided this case based onpolluted sources! By so doing, the #upreme Court added insult to in7ury by failing to actually e8ercise its )power to urge and e8hort the E8ecuti3e ?epartment to ta6e up the claims of the 3inu"a petitioners! +ts callousdisposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance, belies a more alarming lac6 of concern for e3en themost basic 3alues of decency and respect! The reputation of the Philippine #upreme Court and the standing ofthe Philippine legal profession before other udiciaries and legal systems are truly at sta6e!

The =igh Court cannot accommodate less than absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept e8cusesfor failure to attain the highest standards of conduct imposed upon all members of the Bench and Bar becausethese undermine the 3ery foundation of its authority and power in a democratic society! i3en the CourtFs

recent history and the contro3ersy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and ob3iousplagiarism to pass without sanction as this would only further erode faith and confidence in the 7udicial system! And in light of the significance of this decision to the 4uest for 7ustice not only of 2ilipino women, but of womenelsewhere in the world who ha3e suffered the horrors of se8ual abuse and e8ploitation in times of war, theCourt cannot coldly deny relief and 7ustice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted te8ts!

The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct,whether collecti3ely or through its Members, is beyond reproach! This necessarily includes ensuring that notonly the content, but also the processes of preparing and writing its own decisions, are credible and beyond4uestion! The :inuya ?ecision must be conscientiously re3iewed and not casually cast aside, if not for thepurpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and guidance! +t is an absolutely essential steptoward the establishment of a higher standard of professional care and practical scholarship in the Bench andBar, which are critical to impro3ing the system of administration of 7ustice in the Philippines! +t is also a 3erycrucial step in ensuring the position of the #upreme Court as the 2inal Arbiter of all contro3ersies5 a position

that re4uires competence and integrity completely abo3e any and all reproach, in accordance with the e8actingdemands of 7udicial and professional ethics!

/ith these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers inthe profession of *aw, it is the opinion of the 2aculty of the .ni3ersity of the Philippine College of *aw that5

$ The plagiarism committed in the case of 3inu"a '. Executi'e Secretar" is unacceptable,unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and 7udicial and professionalcompetence e8pected of the #upreme Court0

; #uch a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire #upremeCourt and undermines the foundations of the Philippine 7udicial system by allowing implicitlythe decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means0

9 The same breach and conse4uent disposition of the 3inu"a case does 3iolence to theprimordial function of the #upreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of 7ustice to all those whoha3e been left without legal or e4uitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein0

% +n light of the e8tremely serious and far@reaching nature of the dishonesty and to sa3e thehonor and dignity of the #upreme Court as an institution, it is necessary for the ponente of:inuya 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary to resign his position, without pre7udice to any other sanctionsthat the Court may consider appropriate0

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


> The #upreme Court must ta6e this opportunity to re3iew the manner by which it conductsresearch, prepares drafts, reaches and finali"es decisions in order to pre3ent a recurrence ofsimilar acts, and to pro3ide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure onlythe highest 4uality of legal research and writing in pleadings, practice, and ad7udication!

Malcolm =all, .ni3ersity of the Philippines College of *aw, Hue"on City, ;< uly ;D$D!

S#D& M!R>IC M&>&& $EO"E"?ean and Professor of *aw

S#D& ROI$!" M& /!CU"#!"?ean $&<'@$&'9

S#D& P!CIICO !& !#!/I"?ean $&'&@$&&>

S#D& MER$I" M& M!#!$$O"!?ean $&&>@$&&&

S#D& S!$>!DOR T& C!R$OT!?ean ;DD>@;DD' and Professor of *aw

RE#U$!R !CU$T

S#D& C!RME$O >& SISO"Professor

S#D& %! $& /!TO"#/!C!$ Assistant Professor

S#D& P!TRICI! R&P& S!$>!DOR D!7! Associate ?ean and Associate Professor

S#D& E>E$" $EO D& /!TT!D Assistant Professor

S#D& D!"TE /& #!TM!T!" Associate Professor

S#D& #7E" #& DE >ER! Assistant Professor

S#D& TEODORE O& TE Assistant Professor

S#D& SO$OMO" & $UM/! Assistant Professor

S#D& $ORI" T& I$/! Assistant Professor

S#D& ROMME$ %& C!SIS Assistant Professor

$ECTURERS

S#D& %OSE #ER!RDO !& !$!MP! S#D& %OSE C& $!URET!S#D& !RTUR P& !UTE! S#D& DI"! D& $UCE"!RIO

S#D& ROS! M!RI! %& /!UTIST! S#D& O7E" %& $"CS#D& M!R: R& /OCO/O S#D& !"TO"IO M& S!"TOS

S#D& D!" P& C!$IC! S#D& >ICE"TE >& ME"DO'!S#D& TRIST!" !& C!TI"DI# S#D& RODO$O "OE$ S& AUIM/O

S#D& S!"DR! M!RIE O& CORO"E$ S#D& #ME$EE" !E /& TOM/OCS#D& ROS!RIO O& #!$$O S#D& "ICO$!S E$IB $& TS#D& CO"CEPCIO" $& %!RDE$E'! S#D& E>!$" #& URSU!

S#D& !"TO"IO #&M& $! >I! S#D& R!U$ T& >!SAUE'

S#D& C!RI"! C& $!ORTE'!S#D& SUS!" D& >I$$!"UE>!;&

.nderscoring supplied!

Meanwhile, in a letter dated August $', ;D$D, Prof! Christian ! Tams made 6nown his sentiments on thealleged plagiarism issue to the Court!9D /e 4uote Prof! TamsF letter here5






7/21/2019 cases 22-36


lasgow, $' August ;D$D

:inuya, et al! 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary et al! !R! No! $;;9D

=on! Renato C! Corona, Chief ustice

Lour E8cellency,

My name is Christian ! Tams, and + am a professor of international law at the .ni3ersity of lasgow! + amwriting to you in relation to the use of one of my publications in the abo3e@mentioned 7udgment of your=onourable Court!

The rele3ant passage of the 7udgment is to be found on p! 9D of your CourtFs udgment, in the sectionaddressing the concept of obligations erga omnes! As the table anne8ed to this letter shows, the rele3antsentences were ta6en almost word by word from the introductory chapter of my boo6 Enforcing 1bligationsErga 1mnes in +nternational *aw Cambridge .ni3ersity Press ;DD>! + note that there is a generic reference tomy wor6 in footnote & of the udgment, but as this is in relation to a citation from another author Bruno#imma rather than with respect to the substanti3e passages reproduced in the udgment, + do not thin6 it canbe considered an appropriate form of referencing!

+ am particularly concerned that my wor6 should ha3e been used to support the udgmentFs cautious approachto the erga omnes concept! +n fact, a most cursory reading shows that my boo6Fs central thesis is precisely theopposite5 namely that the erga omnes concept has been widely accepted and has a firm place in contemporaryinternational law! =ence the introductory chapter notes that )the present study attempts to demystify aspectsof the 3ery mysteriousF concept and thereby to facilitate its implementation) p! >! +n the same 3ein, theconcluding section notes that )the preceding chapters show that the concept is now a part of the reality ofinternational law, established in the 7urisprudence of courts and the practice of #tates) p! 9D&!

/ith due respect to your =onourable Court, + am at a loss to see how my wor6 should ha3e been cited tosupport S as it seemingly has S the opposite approach! More generally, + am concerned at the way in whichyour =onourable CourtFs udgment has drawn on scholarly wor6 without properly ac6nowledging it!

1n both aspects, + would appreciate a prompt response from your =onourable Court!

+ remain

#incerely yours

#gd!Christian ! Tams9$

+n the course of the submission of Atty! Ro4ue and Atty! BagaresF e8hibits during the August ;, ;D$D hearing inthe ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo, the Ethics Committee noted that E8hibit )) a copy of theRestoring +ntegrity #tatement was not signed but merely reflected the names of certain faculty members withthe letters #?! beside the names! Thus, the Ethics Committee directed Atty! Ro4ue to present the signed

copy of the said #tatement within three days from the August ; hearing!9;

+t was upon compliance with this directi3e that the Ethics Committee was gi3en a copy of the signed .P *aw2aculty #tatement that showed on the signature pages the names of the full roster of the .P *aw 2aculty, '$faculty members in all! +ndubitable from the actual signed copy of the #tatement was that only 9< of the '$faculty members appeared to ha3e signed the same! =owe3er, the 9< actual signatories to the #tatement didnot include former #upreme Court Associate ustice :icente :! Mendo"a ustice Mendo"a as represented inthe pre3ious copies of the #tatement submitted by ?ean *eonen and Atty! Ro4ue! +t also appeared that Atty!Miguel R! Armo3it Atty! Armo3it signed the #tatement although his name was not included among the





7/21/2019 cases 22-36


signatories in the pre3ious copies submitted to the Court! Thus, the total number of ostensible signatories to the#tatement remained at 9<!

The Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc since the same #tatement, ha3ing beenformally submitted by ?ean *eonen on August $$, ;D$D, was already under consideration by the Court!99

+n a Resolution dated 1ctober $&, ;D$D, the Court en banc made the following obser3ations regarding the .P*aw 2aculty #tatement5

Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the educatorsF opinion on the allegations of plagiarismagainst ustice ?el Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth! +nparticular, they e8pressed dissatisfaction o3er ustice ?el CastilloFs e8planation on how he cited the primarysources of the 4uoted portions and yet arri3ed at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the articlessupposedly plagiari"ed!

Beyond this, howe3er, the statement bore certain remar6s which raise concern for the Court! The openingsentence alone is a grim preamble to the institutional attac6 that lay ahead! +t reads5

An e8traordinary act of in7ustice has again been committed against the bra3e 2ilipinas who had suffered abuse

during a time of war!

The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in :inuya 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary asareprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the =ighest Court of the land! 8 8 8!

The insult to the members of the Court was aggra3ated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of )polluted sources,) the CourtFs alleged indifference to the cause ofpetitioners in the :inuya case, as well as the supposed alarming lac6 of concern of the members of the Courtfor e3en the most basic 3alues of decency and respect!9% 8 8 8! .nderscoring ours!

+n the same Resolution, the Court went on to state that5

/hile most agree that the right to critici"e the 7udiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society,

there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far! Many types of criticism le3eled at the 7udiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attac6s! These potentially de3astating attac6s andun7ust criticism can threaten the independence of the 7udiciary! The court must )insist on being permitted toproceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructi3e of itsfunctions and tending to embarrass the administration of 7ustice!)

The Court could hardly percei3e any reasonable purpose for the facultyFs less than ob7ecti3e comments e8ceptto discredit the April ;', ;D$D ?ecision in the :inuya case and undermine the CourtFs honesty, integrity andcompetence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration! As if the case on the comfort womenFs claims isnot contro3ersial enough, the .P *aw faculty would fan the flames and in3ite resentment against a resolutionthat would not re3erse the said decision! This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers ofthe Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according tothe oath they ha3e ta6en as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice! 9> 8 8 8!Citations omitted0 emphases and underscoring supplied!

Thus, the Court directed Attys! Mar3ic M!:!2! *eonen, 2roilan M! Bacungan, Pacifico A! Agabin, Merlin M!Magallona, #al3ador T! Carlota, Carmelo :! #ison, Patricia R!P! #al3ador ?away, ?ante B! atmaytan,Theodore 1! Te, 2lorin T! =ilbay, ay *! Batongbacal, E3elyn *eo ?! Battad, wen ! ?e :era, #olomon 2!*umba, Rommel ! Casis, ose erardo A! Alampay, Miguel R! Armo3it, Arthur P! Autea, Rosa Maria !Bautista, Mar6 R! Bocobo, ?an P! Calica, Tristan A! Catindig, #andra Marie 1! Coronel, Rosario 1! allo,Concepcion *! ardele"a, Antonio !M! *a :iKa, Carina C! *aforte"a, ose C! *aureta, 1wen ! *ynch, RodolfoNoel #! Huimbo, Antonio M! #antos, meleen 2aye B! Tomboc, Nicholas 2eli8 *! Ty, E3alyn ! .rsua, Raul T!:as4ue", #usan ?! :illanue3a and ?ina ?! *ucenario to show cause, within ten $D days from receipt of the









7/21/2019 cases 22-36


copy of the Resolution, why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for 3iolation of Canons $,9 $$and $9 and Rules $!D; and $$!D> of the Code of Professional Responsibility!9<

?ean *eonen was li6ewise directed to show cause within the same period why he should not be disciplinarilydealt with for 3iolation of Canon $D, Rules $D!D$, $D!D; and $D!D9 for submitting through his letter dated August$D, ;D$D, during the pendency of !R! No! $;;9D and of the in3estigation before the Ethics Committee, for theconsideration of the Court en banc, a dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the .P *aw2aculty #tatement!9'

+n the same Resolution, the present contro3ersy was doc6eted as a regular administrati3e matter!

#ummaries of the Pleadings 2iled by Respondents in Response to the 1ctober $&, ;D$D #how CauseResolution

1n No3ember $&, ;D$D, within the e8tension for filing granted by the Court, respondents filed the followingpleadings5

$ Compliance dated No3ember $', ;D$D by counsels for 9> of the 9< respondents, e8cluding Prof!1wen *ynch and Prof! Raul T! :as4ue", in relation to the charge of 3iolation of Canons $, $$ and $9

and Rules $!D; and $$!D> of the Code of Professional Responsibility0

; Compliance and Reser3ation dated No3ember $', ;D$D by Prof! Rosa Maria T! uan@Bautista inrelation to the same charge in par! $0

9 Compliance dated No3ember $&, ;D$D by counsel for Prof! Raul T! :as4ue" in relation to the samecharge in par! $0

% Compliance dated No3ember $&, ;D$D by counsels for ?ean *eonen, in relation to the charge of3iolation of Canon $D, Rules $D!D$, $D!D; and $D!D90 and

> Manifestation dated No3ember $&, ;D$D by counsel for Prof! 1wen *ynch!

Common Compliance of 9> Respondents E8cluding Prof! 1wen *ynch and Prof! Raul :as4ue"

Thirty@fi3e 9> of the respondent .P *aw professors filed on No3ember $&, ;D$D a common compliance whichwas signed by their respecti3e counsels the Common Compliance! +n the )Preface) of said CommonCompliance, respondents stressed that )they issued the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement in the discharge of thesolemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of law,F and as members of the Barto spea6 out on a matter of public concern and one that is of 3ital interest to them!) 9& They li6ewise alleged that)they acted with the purest of intentions) and pointed out that )none of them was in3ol3ed either as party orcounsel)%D in the :inuya case! 2urther, respondents )note with concern) that the #how Cause ResolutionFsfindings and conclusions were )a pre7udgment S that respondents indeed are in contempt, ha3e breached theirobligations as law professors and officers of the Court, and ha3e 3iolated Canons $, $$ and $9 and Rules$!D; and $$!D> of the Code of Professional Responsibility!)%$

By way of e8planation, the respondents emphasi"ed the following points5

a RespondentsF alleged noble intentions

+n response to the charges of failure to obser3e due respect to legal processes %; and the courts%9 andof tending to influence, or gi3ing the appearance of influencing the Court%% in the issuance of their#tatement, respondents assert that their intention was not to malign the Court but rather to defend itsintegrity and credibility and to ensure continued confidence in the legal system! Their noble moti3e waspurportedly e3idenced by the portion of their #tatement )focusing on constructi3eaction!)%> RespondentsF call in the #tatement for the Court )to pro3ide clear and concise guidance to



























7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest 4uality of legal research and writing in ad7udication,) wasreputedly )in 6eeping with strictures en7oining lawyers to participate in the de3elopment of the legalsystem by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the impro3ement of the administration of 7usticeF) under Canon % of the Code of Professional Responsibility and to )promote respect for thelaw and legal processes) under Canon $, id!!% 2urthermore, as academics, they allegedly ha3e a)special interest and duty to 3igilantly guard against plagiarism and misrepresentation because theseunwelcome occurrences ha3e a profound impact in the academe, especially in our law schools!) %<

Respondents further )called on this Court not to misconstrue the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement as aninstitutional attac6F 8 8 8 on the basis of its first and ninth paragraphs!)%' They further clarified that atthe time the #tatement was allegedly drafted and agreed upon, it appeared to them the Court )was notgoing to ta6e any action on the gra3e and startling allegations of plagiarism andmisrepresentation!)%& According to respondents, the bases for their belief were i the news articlepublished on uly ;$, ;D$D in the Philippine ?aily +n4uirer wherein Court Administrator ose Midas P!Mar4ue" was reported to ha3e said that Chief ustice Corona would not order an in4uiry into thematter 0>D and ii the uly ;;, ;D$D letter of ustice ?el Castillo which they claimed )did nothing but todownplay the gra3ity of the plagiarism and misrepresentation charges!)>$ Respondents claimed that itwas their perception of the CourtFs indifference to the dangers posed by the plagiarism allegationsagainst ustice ?el Castillo that impelled them to urgently ta6e a public stand on the issue!

b The )correctness) of respondentsF position that ustice ?el Castillo committed plagiarism andshould be held accountable in accordance with the standards of academic writing

A significant portion of the Common Compliance is de3oted to a discussion of the merits ofrespondentsF charge of plagiarism against ustice ?el Castillo! Relying on .ni3ersity of the PhilippinesBoard of Regents 3! Court of Appeals>; and foreign materials and 7urisprudence, respondentsessentially argue that their position regarding the plagiarism charge against ustice ?el Castillo is thecorrect 3iew and that they are therefore 7ustified in issuing their Restoring +ntegrity #tatement! Attachments to the Common Compliance included, among others5 i the letter dated 1ctober ;', ;D$Dof Peter B! Payoyo, **!M, Ph!?!,>9 sent to Chief ustice Corona through ustice #ereno, alleging thatthe :inuya decision li6ewise lifted without proper attribution the te8t from a legal article by Mariana#ala"ar Alborno" that appeared in the Anuario Me8icano ?e ?erecho +nternacional and from an+nternational Court of ustice decision0 and ii a ;DD' =uman Rights *aw Re3iew Article entitled)#e8ual 1rientation, ender +dentity and +nternational =uman Rights *aw) by Michael 1F2laherty and

ohn 2isher, in support of their charge that ustice ?el Castillo also lifted passages from said articlewithout proper attribution, but this time, in his ponencia in Ang *adlad *BT Party 3! Commission onElections!>%

c RespondentsF belief that they are being )singled out) by the Court when others ha3e li6ewisespo6en on the )plagiarism issue)

+n the Common Compliance, respondents li6ewise asserted that )the plagiarism and misrepresentationallegations are legitimate public issues!)>> They identified 3arious published reports and opinions, inagreement with and in opposition to the stance of respondents, on the issue of plagiarism, specifically5

i Newsbrea6 report on uly $&, ;D$D by Aries Rufo and Purple Romero0>

ii Column of Ramon Tulfo which appeared in the Philippine ?aily +n4uirer on uly ;%, ;D$D0><

iii Editorial of the Philippine ?aily +n4uirer published on uly ;>, ;D$D0>'

i3 *etter dated uly ;;, ;D$D of ustice ?el Castillo published in the Philippine #tar on uly9D, ;D$D0>&

3 Column of 2ormer +ntellectual Property 1ffice ?irector eneral Adrian Cristobal, r!published in the Business Mirror on August >, ;D$D0D





































7/21/2019 cases 22-36


3i Column of 2ormer Chief ustice Artemio Panganiban published in the Philippine ?aily+n4uirer on August ', ;D$D0$

3ii News report regarding #enator 2rancis PangilinanFs call for the resignation of ustice ?elCastillo published in the ?aily Tribune and the Manila #tandard Today on uly 9$, ;D$D0 ;

3iii News reports regarding the statement of ?ean Cesar :illanue3a of the Ateneo de Manila.ni3ersity #chool of *aw on the calls for the resignation of ustice ?el Castillo published inThe Manila Bulletin, the Philippine #tar and the Business Mirror on August $$, ;D$D09

i8 News report on e8pressions of support for ustice ?el Castillo from a former dean of thePamantasan ng *ungsod ng Maynila, the Philippine Constitutional Association, the udges Association of Bulacan and the +ntegrated Bar of the Philippines S Bulacan Chapter publishedin the Philippine #tar on August $, ;D$D0% and

8 *etter of the ?ean of the *iceo de Cagayan .ni3ersity College of *aw published in thePhilippine ?aily +n4uirer on August $D, ;D$D!>

+n 3iew of the foregoing, respondents alleged that this Court has singled them out for sanctions and

the charge in the #how Cause Resolution dated 1ctober $&, ;D$D that they may ha3e 3iolated specificcanons of the Code of Professional Responsibility is unfair and without basis!

d 2reedom of e8pression

+n paragraphs ;' to 9D of the Common Compliance, respondents briefly discussed their position that inissuing their #tatement, )they should be seen as not only to be performing their duties as members ofthe Bar, officers of the court, and teachers of law, but also as citi"ens of a democracy who areconstitutionally protected in the e8ercise of free speech!) +n support of this contention, they cited.nited #tates 3! Bustos,< +n re5 Atty! :icente Raul Almacen, ' and +n the Matter of Petition for?eclaratory Relief Re5 Constitutionality of Republic Act %''D, on"ales 3! Commission on Elections! &

e Academic freedom

+n paragraphs 9$ to 9% of the Common Compliance, respondents asserted that their #tatement was also issuedin the e8ercise of their academic freedom as teachers in an institution of higher learning! They relied on #ection> of the .ni3ersity of the Philippines Charter of ;DD' which pro3ided that )the national uni3ersity has the rightand responsibility to e8ercise academic freedom!) They li6ewise ad3erted to arcia 3! The 2aculty AdmissionCommittee, *oyola #chool of Theology<D which they claimed recogni"ed the e8tent and breadth of suchfreedom as to encourage a free and healthy discussion and communication of a faculty memberFs field of studywithout fear of reprisal! +t is respondentsF 3iew that had they remained silent on the plagiarism issue in the:inuya decision they would ha3e )compromised their integrity and credibility as teachers0 their silence wouldha3e created a culture and generation of students, professionals, e3en lawyers, who would lac6 thecompetence and discipline for research and pleading0 or, worse, that their silence would ha3e communicatedto the public that plagiarism and misrepresentation are inconse4uential matters and that intellectual integrityhas no bearing or rele3ance to oneFs conduct!)<$

+n closing, respondentsF Common Compliance e8horted this Court to consider the following portion of thedissenting opinion of ustice eorge A! Malcolm in #alcedo 3! =ernande",<; to wit5

Respect for the courts can better be obtained by following a calm and impartial course from the bench than byan attempt to compel respect for the 7udiciary by chastising a lawyer for a too 3igorous or in7udicious e8positionof his side of a case! The Philippines needs lawyers of independent thought and courageous bearing, 7ealousof the interests of their clients and unafraid of any court, high or low, and the courts will do well tolerantly too3erloo6 occasional intemperate language soon to be regretted by the lawyer which affects in no way theoutcome of a case!<9

































7/21/2019 cases 22-36


1n the matter of the reliefs to which respondents belie3e they are entitled, the Common Compliance stated,thus5

/=ERE21RE5

A! Respondents, as citi"ens of a democracy, professors of law, members of the Bar and officers of the

Court, respectfully pray that5

$! the foregoing be noted0 and

;! the Court reconsider and re3erse its ad3erse findings in the #how Cause Resolution,including its conclusions that respondents ha3e5 a breached their )obligation as lawprofessors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of thisCourt, U and not to promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice0) and b committed)3iolations of Canons $D, $$, and $9 and Rules $!D; and $$!D> of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility!)

B! +n the e3ent the =onorable Court declines to grant the foregoing prayer, respondents respectfullypray, in the alternati3e, and in assertion of their due process rights, that before final 7udgment be

rendered5

$! the #how Cause Resolution be set for hearing0

;! respondents be gi3en a fair and full opportunity to refute andJor address the findings andconclusions of fact in the #how Cause Resolution including especially the finding andconclusion of a lac6 of malicious intent, and in that connection, that appropriate proceduresand schedules for hearing be adopted and defined that will allow them the full and fairopportunity to re4uire the production of and to present testimonial, documentary, and ob7ecte3idence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in :inuya 3! E8ecuti3e#ecretary !R! No! $;;9D, April ;', ;D$D and +n the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism,etc! Against Associate ustice Mariano C! ?el Castillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C0 and

9! respondents be gi3en fair and full access to the transcripts, records, drafts, reports andsubmissions in or relating to, and accorded the opportunity to cross@e8amine the witnesseswho were or could ha3e been called in +n The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc! Against Associate ustice Mariano C! ?el Castillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C!<%

Compliance and Reser3ation of Prof! Rosa Maria T! uan@Bautista

Although already included in the Common Compliance, Prof! Rosa Maria T! uan@Bautista Prof! uan@Bautistafiled a separate Compliance and Reser3ation the Bautista Compliance, wherein she adopted the allegationsin the Common Compliance with some additional a3erments!

Prof! uan@Bautista reiterated that her due process rights allegedly entitled her to challenge the findings andconclusions in the #how Cause Resolution! 2urthermore, )if the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement can beconsidered indirect contempt, under #ection 9 of Rule <$ of the Rules of Court, such may be punished onlyafter charge and hearing!)<>

Prof! uan@Bautista stressed that respondents signed the #tatement )in good faith and with the best intentionsto protect the #upreme Court by as6ing one member to resign!)< 2or her part, Prof! uan@Bautista intimatedthat her deep disappointment and sadness for the plight of the Malaya *olas were what moti3ated her to signthe #tatement!

1n the point of academic freedom, Prof! uan@Bautista cited 7urisprudence<< which in her 3iew highlighted thatacademic freedom is constitutionally guaranteed to institutions of higher learning such that schools ha3e the










7/21/2019 cases 22-36


freedom to determine for themsel3es who may teach, what may be taught, how lessons shall be taught andwho may be admitted to study and that courts ha3e no authority to interfere in the schoolsF e8ercise ofdiscretion in these matters in the absence of gra3e abuse of discretion! #he claims the Court has encroachedon the academic freedom of the .ni3ersity of the Philippines and other uni3ersities on their right to determinehow lessons shall be taught!

*astly, Prof! uan@Bautista asserted that the #tatement was an e8ercise of respondentsF constitutional right tofreedom of e8pression that can only be curtailed when there is gra3e and imminent danger to public safety,public morale, public health or other legitimate public interest! <'

Compliance of Prof! Raul T! :as4ue"

1n No3ember $&, ;D$D, Prof! Raul T! :as4ue" Prof! :as4ue" filed a separate Compliance by registered mailthe :as4ue" Compliance! +n said Compliance, Prof! :as4ue" narrated the circumstances surrounding hissigning of the #tatement! =e alleged that the :inuya decision was a topic of con3ersation among the .P *awfaculty early in the first semester of academic year ;D$D@$$ because it reportedly contained citations notproperly attributed to the sources0 that he was shown a copy of the #tatement by a cler6 of the 1ffice of the?ean on his way to his class0 and that, agreeing in principle with the main theme ad3anced by the #tatement,he signed the same in utmost good faith!<&

+n response to the directi3e from this Court to e8plain why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Barunder the #how Cause Resolution, Prof! :as4ue" also too6 the position that a lawyer has the right, li6e allciti"ens in a democratic society, to comment on acts of public officers! =e in3ited the attention of the Court tothe following authorities5 a +n re5 :icente #otto0'D b +n re5 Atty! :icente Raul Almacen0'$ and c a discussionappearing in American urisprudence Amur ;d!'; =e claims that he )ne3er had any intention to undulyinfluence, nor entertained any illusion that he could or should influence, the Court in its disposition of the:inuya case)'9 and that )attac6ing the integrity of the Court was the farthest thing on respondentFs mind whenhe signed the #tatement!)'% .nli6e his colleagues, who wish to impress upon this Court the purportedhomogeneity of the 3iews on what constitutes plagiarism, Prof! :as4ue" stated in his Compliance that5

$9! Before this =onorable Court rendered its ?ecision dated $; 1ctober ;D$D, some espoused the 3iew thatwillful and deliberate intent to commit plagiarism is an essential element of the same! 1thers, li6e respondent,were of the opinion that plagiarism is committed regardless of the intent of the perpetrator, the way it has

always been 3iewed in the academe! This uncertainty made the issue a fair topic for academic discussion inthe College! Now, this =onorable Court has ruled that plagiarism presupposes deliberate intent to stealanotherFs wor6 and to pass it off as oneFs own!'> Emphases supplied!

Also in contrast to his colleagues, Prof! :as4ue" was willing to concede that he )might ha3e been remiss incorrectly assessing the effects of such language in the #tatement and could ha3e been more careful!) ' =eends his discussion with a respectful submission that with his e8planation, he has faithfully complied with the#how Cause Resolution and that the Court will rule that he had not in any manner 3iolated his oath as a lawyerand officer of the Court!

#eparate Compliance of ?ean *eonen regarding the charge of 3iolation of Canon $D in relation to hissubmission of a )dummy) of the .P *aw 2aculty #tatement to this Court

+n his Compliance, ?ean *eonen claimed that there were three draftsJ3ersions of the .P *aw 2aculty#tatement, which he described as follows5

)Restoring +ntegrity +) which bears the entire roster of the faculty of the .P College of *aw in its

signing pages, and the actual signatures of the thirty@se3en 9< faculty members sub7ect of the #howCause Resolution! A copy was filed with the =onorable Court by Ro4ue and Butuyan on 9$ August;D$D in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C!

)Restoring +ntegrity ++) which does not bear any actual physical signature, but which reflects as

signatories the names of thirty@se3en 9< members of the faculty with the notation )#?!)! A copy of






















7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Restoring +ntegrity ++ was publicly and physically posted in the .P College of *aw on $D August ;D$D! Another copy of Restoring +ntegrity ++ was also officially recei3ed by the =onorable Court from the?ean of the .P College of *aw on $$ August ;D$D, almost three wee6s before the filing of Restoring+ntegrity +!

)Restoring +ntegrity +++) which is a reprinting of Restoring +ntegrity ++, and which presently ser3es as

the official file copy of the ?eanFs 1ffice in the .P College of *aw that may be signed by other facultymembers who still wish to! +t bears the actual signatures of the thirty@ se3en original signatories toRestoring +ntegrity + abo3e their printed names and the notation )#?!) and, in addition, the actualsignatures of eight ' other members of the faculty abo3e their handwritten or typewritten names! '<

2or purposes of this discussion, only Restoring +ntegrity + and Restoring +ntegrity ++ are rele3ant since what?ean *eonen has been directed to e8plain are the discrepancies in the signature pages of these twodocuments! Restoring +ntegrity +++ was ne3er submitted to this Court!

1n how Restoring +ntegrity + and Restoring +ntegrity ++ were prepared and came about, ?ean *eonen alleged,thus5

;!; 1n ;< uly ;D$D, sensing the emergence of a relati3ely broad agreement in the faculty on a draftstatement, ?ean *eonen instructed his staff to print the draft and circulate it among the faculty

members so that those who wished to may sign! 2or this purpose, the staff encoded the law facultyroster to ser3e as the printed draftFs signing pages! Thus did the first printed draft of the Restoring+ntegrity #tatement, Restoring +ntegrity +, come into being!

;!9! As of ;< uly ;D$D, the date of the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement, ?ean *eonen was unaware thata Motion for Reconsideration of the =onorable CourtFs ?ecision in :inuya 3s! E8ecuti3e #ecretary!R! No! $;;9D, ;' April ;D$D had already been filed, or that the =onorable Court was in theprocess of con3ening its Committee on Ethics and Ethical #tandards in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C!

;!%! ?ean *eonenFs staff then circulated Restoring +ntegrity + among the members of the faculty! #omefaculty members 3isited the ?eanFs 1ffice to sign the document or had it brought to their classrooms inthe College of *aw, or to their offices or residences! #till other faculty members who, for one reason oranother, were unable to sign Restoring +ntegrity + at that time, ne3ertheless con3eyed to ?ean *eonen

their assurances that they would sign as soon as they could manage!

;!>! #ometime in the second wee6 of August, 7udging that Restoring +ntegrity + had been circulatedlong enough, ?ean *eonen instructed his staff to reproduce the statement in a style and mannerappropriate for posting in the College of *aw! 2ollowing his own established practice in relation tosignificant public issuances, he directed them to reformat the signing pages so that only the names ofthose who signed the first printed draft would appear, together with the corresponding )#?!) notefollowing each name! Restoring +ntegrity ++ thus came into being!''

According to ?ean *eonen, the )practice of eliminating blan6s opposite or abo3e the names of non@signatoriesin the final draft of significant public issuances, is meant not so much for aesthetic considerations as to securethe integrity of such documents!)'& =e li6ewise claimed that )posting statements with blan6s would be an openin3itation to 3andals and pran6sters!)&D

/ith respect to the inclusion of ustice Mendo"aFs name as among the signatories in Restoring +ntegrity ++when in fact he did not sign Restoring +ntegrity +, ?ean *eonen attributed the mista6e to a miscommunicationin3ol3ing his administrati3e officer! +n his Compliance, he narrated that5

;!<! .pon being presented with a draft of Restoring +ntegrity ++ with the reformatted signing pages,?ean *eonen noticed the inclusion of the name of ustice Mendo"a among the )#?!) signatories! As ustice Mendo"a was not among those who had physically signed Restoring +ntegrity + when it waspre3iously circulated, ?ean *eonen called the attention of his staff to the inclusion of the usticeFsname among the )#?!) signatories in Restoring +ntegrity ++!









7/21/2019 cases 22-36


;!'! ?ean *eonen was told by his administrati3e officer that she had spo6en to ustice Mendo"a o3erthe phone on 2riday, D August ;D$D! According to her, ustice Mendo"a had authori"ed the dean tosign the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement for him as he agreed fundamentally with its contents! Alsoaccording to her, ustice Mendo"a was unable at that time to sign the Restoring +ntegrity #tatementhimself as he was lea3ing for the .nited #tates the following wee6! +t would later turn out that thisaccount was not entirely accurate!&$ .nderscoring and italics supplied!

?ean *eonen claimed that he )had no reason to doubt his administrati3e officer, howe3er, and so placed fullreliance on her account)&; as )there were indeed other faculty members who had also authori"ed the ?ean toindicate that they were signatories, e3en though they were at that time unable to affi8 their signatures physicallyto the document!)&9

=owe3er, after recei3ing the #how Cause Resolution, ?ean *eonen and his staff re3iewed the circumstancessurrounding their effort to secure ustice Mendo"aFs signature! +t would turn out that this was what actuallytranspired5

;!;;!$! 1n 2riday, D August ;D$D, when the deanFs staff tal6ed to ustice Mendo"a on the phone, heustice Mendo"a indeed initially agreed to sign the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement as he fundamentallyagreed with its contents! =owe3er, ustice Mendo"a did not e8actly say that he authori"ed the dean tosign the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement! Rather, he in4uired if he could authori"e the dean to sign it for

him as he was about to lea3e for the .nited #tates! The deanFs staff informed him that they would, atany rate, still try to bring the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement to him!

;!;;!;! ?ue to some administrati3e difficulties, ustice Mendo"a was unable to sign the Restoring+ntegrity #tatement before he left for the .!#! the following wee6!

;!;;!9! The staff was able to bring Restoring +ntegrity +++ to ustice Mendo"a when he went to theCollege to teach on ;% #eptember ;D$D, a day after his arri3al from the .!#! This time, usticeMendo"a declined to sign!&%

According to the ?ean5

;!;9! +t was only at this time that ?ean *eonen reali"ed the true import of the call he recei3ed from ustice

Mendo"a in late #eptember! +ndeed, ustice Mendo"a confirmed that by the time the hard copy of theRestoring +ntegrity #tatement was brought to him shortly after his arri3al from the .!#!, he declined to sign itbecause it had already become contro3ersial! At that time, he predicted that the Court would ta6e some form ofaction against the faculty! By then, and under those circumstances, he wanted to show due deference to the=onorable Court, being a former Associate ustice and not wishing to unduly aggra3ate the situation by signingthe #tatement!&>Emphases supplied!

/ith respect to the omission of Atty! Armo3itFs name in the signature page of Restoring +ntegrity ++ when he wasone of the signatories of Restoring +ntegrity + and the erroneous description in ?ean *eonenFs August $D, ;D$Dletter that the 3ersion of the #tatement submitted to the Court was signed by 9' members of the .P *aw2aculty, it was e8plained in the Compliance that5

Respondent Atty! Miguel Armo3it physically signed Restoring +ntegrity + when it was circulated to him! =owe3er,

his name was inad3ertently left out by ?ean *eonenFs staff in the reformatting of the signing pages in Restoring+ntegrity ++! The dean assumed that his name was still included in the reformatted signing pages, and somentioned in his co3er note to Chief ustice Corona that 9' members of the law faculty signed the original 9<plus ustice Mendo"a!&

?ean *eonen argues that he should not be deemed to ha3e submitted a dummy of the #tatement that was nota true and faithful reproduction of the same! =e emphasi"ed that the main body of the #tatement wasunchanged in all its three 3ersions and only the signature pages were not the same! This purportedly is merely)reflecti3e of the #tatementFs essential nature as a li3eF public manifesto meant to continuously drawadherents to its message, its signatory portion is necessarily e3ol3ing and dynamic 8 8 8 many other printings















7/21/2019 cases 22-36


of the #tatement may be made in the future, each one reflecting the same te8t but with more and moresignatories!)&< Ad3erting to criminal law by analogy, ?ean *eonen claims that )this is not an instance where ithas been made to appear in a document that a person has participated in an act when the latter did not in factso participate)&' for he )did not misrepresent which members of the faculty of the .P College of *aw had agreedwith the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement proper andJor had e8pressed their desire to be signatories thereto!) &&

+n this regard, ?ean *eonen belie3es that he had not committed any 3iolation of Canon $D or Rules $D!D$ and$D!D; for he did not mislead nor misrepresent to the Court the contents of the #tatement or the identities of the.P *aw faculty members who agreed with, or e8pressed their desire to be signatories to, the #tatement! =ealso asserts that he did not commit any 3iolation of Rule $D!D9 as he )coursed the #tatement through theappropriate channels by transmitting the same to =onorable Chief ustice Corona for the latterFs informationand proper disposition with the hope that its points would be duly considered by the =onorable Court enbanc!)$DD Citing Rudecon Management Corporation 3! Camacho,$D$ ?ean *eonen posits that the re4uired4uantum of proof has not been met in this case and that no dubious character or moti3ation for the actcomplained of e8isted to warrant an administrati3e sanction for 3iolation of the standard of honesty pro3ided for by the Code of Professional Responsibility!$D;

?ean *eonen ends his Compliance with an enumeration of nearly identical reliefs as the Common Compliance,including the prayers for a hearing and for access to the records, e3idence and witnesses allegedly rele3ant notonly in this case but also in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C, the ethical in3estigation in3ol3ing ustice ?el Castillo!

Manifestation of Prof! 1wen *ynch *ynch Manifestation

2or his part, Prof! 1wen *ynch Prof! *ynch manifests to this Court that he is not a member of the Philippinebar0 but he is a member of the bar of the #tate of Minnesota! =e alleges that he first taught as a 3isitingprofessor at the .P College of *aw in $&'$ to $&'' and returned in the same capacity in ;D$D! =e furtheralleges that )he subscribes to the principle, espoused by this Court and the #upreme Court of the .nited#tates, that Udebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and that it may wellinclude 3ehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attac6s on go3ernment and public officials!) $D9 +nsigning the #tatement, he belie3es that )the right to spea6 means the right to spea6 effecti3ely!)$D% Citing thedissenting opinions in Manila Public #chool Teachers Association 3! *aguio, r!,$D> Prof! *ynch argued that )forspeech to be effecti3e, it must be forceful enough to ma6e the intended recipients listen)$D and )the 4uality ofeducation would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression, when the 3ery teachers who are supposed topro3ide an e8ample of courage and self@asserti3eness to their pupils can spea6 only in timorouswhispers!)$D< Relying on the doctrine in +n the Matter of Petition for ?eclaratory Relief Re5 Constitutionality ofRepublic Act %''D, on"ales 3! Commission on Elections,$D' Prof! *ynch belie3ed that the #tatement did notpose any danger, clear or present, of any substanti3e e3il so as to remo3e it from the protecti3e mantle of theBill of Rights i!e!, referring to the constitutional guarantee on free speech! $D& =e also stated that he )has readthe Compliance of the other respondents to the #how Cause Resolution) and that )he signed the Restoring+ntegrity #tatement for the same reasons they did!)$$D

+##.E#

Based on the #how Cause Resolution and a perusal of the submissions of respondents, the material issues tobe resol3ed in this case are as follows5

$! ?oes the #how Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of e8pression

;! ?oes the #how Cause Resolution 3iolate respondentsF academic freedom as law professors

9! ?o the submissions of respondents satisfactorily e8plain why they should not be disciplined asMembers of the Bar under Canons $, $$, and $9 and Rules $!D; and $$!D> of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility

%! ?oes the separate Compliance of ?ean *eonen satisfactorily e8plain why he should not bedisciplined as a Member of the Bar under Canon $D, Rules $D!D$, $D!D; and $D!D9



































7/21/2019 cases 22-36


>! Are respondents entitled to ha3e the #how Cause Resolution set for hearing and in relation to suchhearing, are respondents entitled to re4uire the production or presentation of e3idence bearing on theplagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the :inuya case !R! No! $;;9D and the ethics caseagainst ustice ?el Castillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C and to ha3e access to the records and transcriptsof, and the witnesses and e3idence presented, or could ha3e been presented, in the ethics caseagainst ustice ?el Castillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C

?+#C.##+1N

The #how Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of e8pression!

+t is respondentsF collecti3e claim that the Court, with the issuance of the #how Cause Resolution, hasinterfered with respondentsF constitutionally mandated right to free speech and e8pression! +t appears that theunderlying assumption behind respondentsF assertion is the misconception that this Court is denying them theright to critici"e the CourtFs decisions and actions, and that this Court see6s to )silence) respondent lawprofessorsF dissenting 3iew on what they characteri"e as a )legitimate public issue!)

This is far from the truth! A reading of the #how Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the factthat respondents had critici"ed a decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members ofplagiarism that moti3ated the said Resolution! +t was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious

language by which respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the 3inu"a case, ha3e e8pressed theiropinion in fa3or of the petitioners in the said pending case for the )proper disposition) and consideration of theCourt that ga3e rise to said Resolution! The #how Cause Resolution painsta6ingly enumerated the statementsthat the Court considered e8cessi3e and uncalled for under the circumstances surrounding the issuance,publication, and later submission to this Court of the .P *aw facultyFs Restoring +ntegrity #tatement!

To reiterate, it was not the circumstance that respondents e8pressed a belief that ustice ?el Castillo was guiltyof plagiarism but rather their e8pression of that belief as )not only as an established fact, but a truth) $$$ when itwas )of public 6nowledge that there was an ongoing in3estigation precisely to determine the truth of suchallegations!)$$; +t was also pointed out in the #how Cause Resolution that there was a pending motion forreconsideration of the :inuya decision!$$9 The #how Cause Resolution made no ob7ections to the portions of theRestoring +ntegrity #tatement that respondents claimed to be )constructi3e) but only as6ed respondents toe8plain those portions of the said #tatement that by no stretch of the imagination could be considered as fair or

constructi3e, to wit5

Beyond this, howe3er, the statement bore certain remar6s which raise concern for the Court! The openingsentence alone is a grim preamble to the institutional attac6 that lay ahead! +t reads5

An e8traordinary act of in7ustice has again been committed against the bra3e 2ilipinas who had suffered abuseduring a time of war!

The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in :inuya 3! E8ecuti3e #ecretary asareprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the =ighest Court of the land! 8 8 8!

The insult to the members of the Court was aggra3ated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of )polluted sources,) the CourtFs alleged indifference to the cause of

petitioners in the :inuya case, as well as the supposed alarming lac6 of concern of the members of the Courtfor e3en the most basic 3alues of decency and respect!$$% 8 8 8! .nderscoring ours!

To be sure, the #how Cause Resolution itself recogni"ed respondentsF freedom of e8pression when it statedthat5

/hile most agree that the right to critici"e the 7udiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society,there is also a general consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far! Many types of criticism le3eled at the 7udiciary cross the line to become harmful and irresponsible attac6s! These potentially de3astating attac6s andun7ust criticism can threaten the independence of the 7udiciary! The court must )insist on being permitted to












7/21/2019 cases 22-36


proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructi3e of itsfunctions and tending to embarrass the administration of 7ustice!)

The Court could hardly percei3e any reasonable purpose for the facultyFs less than ob7ecti3e comments e8ceptto discredit the April ;', ;D$D ?ecision in the :inuya case and undermine the CourtFs honesty, integrity andcompetence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration! As if the case on the comfort womenFs claims isnot contro3ersial enough, the .P *aw faculty would fan the flames and in3ite resentment against a resolutionthat would not re3erse the said decision! This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers ofthe Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according tothe oath they ha3e ta6en as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice! $$> 8 8 8!Citations omitted0 emphases and underscoring supplied!

+ndeed, in a long line of cases, including those cited in respondentsF submissions, this Court has held that theright to critici"e the courts and 7udicial officers must be balanced against the e4ually primordial concern that theindependence of the udiciary be protected from due influence or interference! +n cases where the critics arenot only citi"ens but members of the Bar, 7urisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court todiscipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether 7udicial or e8tra7udicial,ha3e e8ceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency!

As early as the $&9> case of #alcedo 3! =ernande",$$ the Court found Atty! :icente ! 2rancisco both guilty of

contempt and liable administrati3ely for the following paragraph in his second motion for reconsideration5

/e should li6e fran6ly and respectfully to ma6e it of record that the resolution of this court, denying our motionfor reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner 2elipe#alcedo and a moc6ery of the popular will e8pressed at the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas! /ewish to e8haust all the means within our power in order that this error may be corrected by the 3ery court whichhas committed it, because we should not want that some citi"en, particularly some 3oter of the municipality ofTiaong, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the 7udicial outrage of whichthe herein petitioner has been the 3ictim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of thishonorable court and of each and e3ery member thereof in the eyes of the public! But, at the same time we wishto state sincerely that erroneous decisions li6e these, which the affected party and his thousands of 3oters willnecessarily consider un7ust, increase the proselytes of sa6dalism and ma6e the public lose confidence in theadministration of 7ustice!$$< Emphases supplied!

The highlighted phrases were considered by the Court as neither 7ustified nor necessary and further held that5

+n order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon in his argumentand to emphasi"e the force thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were sufficient and the phrasesin 4uestion were superfluous! +n order to appeal to reason and 7ustice, it is highly improper and amiss to ma6etrouble and resort to threats, as Attorney :icente ! 2rancisco has done, because both means are annoyingand good practice can ne3er sanction them by reason of their natural tendency to disturb and hinder the freee8ercise of a serene and impartial 7udgment, particularly in 7udicial matters, in the consideration of 4uestionssubmitted for resolution!

There is no 4uestion that said paragraph of Attorney :icente ! 2ranciscos motion contains a more or less3eiled threat to the court because it is insinuated therein, after the author shows the course which the 3oters ofTiaong should follow in case he fails in his attempt, that they will resort to the press for the purpose of

denouncing, what he claims to be a 7udicial outrage of which his client has been the 3ictim0 and because hestates in a threatening manner with the intention of predisposing the mind of the reader against the court, thuscreating an atmosphere of pre7udices against it in order to ma6e it odious in the public eye, that decisions of thenature of that referred to in his motion promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice and increase theproselytes of sa:dalis%, a mo3ement with seditious and re3olutionary tendencies the acti3ities of which, as is of public 6nowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago! This cannot mean otherwise than contempt of thedignity of the court and disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of Attorney :icente ! 2rancisco, becausehe presumes that the court is so de3oid of the sense of 7ustice that, if he did not resort to intimidation, it wouldmaintain its error notwithstanding the fact that it may be pro3en, with good reasons, that it has actederroneously!$$' Emphases supplied!













7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#ignificantly, #alcedo is the decision from which respondents culled their 4uote from the minorit= 3iew ofustice Malcolm! Moreo3er, #alcedo concerned statements made in a pleading filed by a counsel in a case,unli6e the respondents here, who are neither parties nor counsels in the 3inu"a case and therefore, do notha3e any standing at all to interfere in the 3inu"a case! +nstead of supporting respondentsF theory, #alcedo isauthority for the following principle5

As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney :icente ! 2rancisco, as any attorney, is in dutybound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon himthe high pri3ilege, not a right Malcolm, *egal Ethics, $>' and $D, o being G.at .e noG is6 a riest o

-stice4n re -hatcher , 'D 1hio #t! Rep!, %&;, &, but also because in so doing, he neither creates norpromotes distrust in the administration of 7ustice, and pre3ents anybody from harboring and encouragingdiscontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which reststhat bulwar6 called 7udicial power to which those who are aggrie3ed turn for protection and relief!$$& Emphasessupplied!

Thus, the lawyer in #alcedo was fined and reriman)e) for his in7udicious statements in his pleading, byaccusing the Court of )erroneous ruling!) =ere, the respondentsF #tatement goes way beyond merely ascribingerror to the Court!

1ther cases cited by respondents li6ewise espouse rulings contrary to their position! +n re5 Atty! :icente Raul

Almacen,$;D cited in the Common Compliance and the :as4ue" Compliance, was an instance where theCourtin)einite(= ssen)e) a member of the Bar for filing and releasing to the press a )Petition to #urrender*awyerFs Certificate of Title) in protest of what he claimed was a great in7ustice to his client committed by the#upreme Court! +n the decision, the petition was described, thus5

=e indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal )peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for 7ustice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable 3iolations of theConstitution with impunity!) =is clients he continues, who was deeply aggrie3ed by this Courts )un7ust 7udgment,) has become )one of the sacrificial 3ictims before the altar of hypocrisy!) +n the same breath that healludes to the classic symbol of 7ustice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying )that 7ustice asadministered by the present members of the #upreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb!) =e then3ows to argue the cause of his client )in the peoples forum,) so that )the people may 6now of the silentin7ustices committed by this Court,) and that )whate3er mista6es, wrongs and in7ustices that were committedmust ne3er be repeated!) =e ends his petition with a prayer that

)8 8 8 a resolution issue ordering the Cler6 of Court to recei3e the certificate of the undersigned attorney andcounsellor@at@law +N TR.#T with reser3ation that at any time in the future and in the e3ent we regain our faithand confidence, we may retrie3e our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession!) $;$

+t is true that in Almacen the Court e8tensi3ely discussed foreign 7urisprudence on the principle that a lawyer, 7ust li6e any citi"en, has the right to critici"e and comment upon actuations of public officers, including 7udicialauthority! =owe3er, the real doctrine in Almacen is that such criticism of the courts, whether done in court oroutside of it, must conform to standards of fairness and propriety! This case engaged in an e3en moree8tensi3e discussion of the legal authorities sustaining this 3iew!Ba!phiB To 4uote from that decision5

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill o3er the walls ofdecency and propriety! A wide chasm e8ists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of

courts and the 7udges thereof, on the other! +ntemperate and unfair criticism is a gross 3iolation of the duty ofrespect to courts! +t is such a misconduct that sub7ects a lawyer to disciplinary action!

2or, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flu8 and ferment!=is in3estiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more e8acting andmore imperati3e than that of respectful beha3ior toward the courts! =e 3ows solemnly to conduct himself )withall good fidelity 8 8 8 to the courts0) and the Rules of Court constantly remind him )to obser3e and maintain therespect due to courts of 7ustice and 7udicial officers!) The first canon of legal ethics en7oins him )to maintain









7/21/2019 cases 22-36


towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sa6e of the temporary incumbent of the 7udicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance!)

As Mr! ustice 2ield puts it5

)8 8 8 the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by e8press declaration ta6e upon

themsel3es, when they are admitted to the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but tomaintain at all times the respect due to courts of 7ustice and 7udicial officers! This obligation is not dischargedby merely obser3ing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining out of court from allinsulting language and offensi3e conduct toward 7udges personally for their 7udicial acts!) Bradley, 3! 2isher, ;D*aw! %d! %<, >;

The lawyers duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of 7ustice! =ence, in the assertion of their clients rights, lawyers ( e3en those gifted with superior intellect ( areen7oined to rein up their tempers!

)The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the 7udge, and it may ta8 hispatience and temper to submit to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline and self@respect are asnecessary to the orderly administration of 7ustice as they are to the effecti3eness of an army! The decisions ofthe 7udge must be obeyed, because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at all times be

the foremost in rendering respectful submission!) 4n Re Scouten, %D Atl! %'$

8 8 8 8

+n his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not di3ide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time anda mere citi"en at another! Thus, statements made by an attorney in pri3ate con3ersations or communications or in the course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute theadministration of 7ustice, may sub7ect the attorney to disciplinary action!$;; Emphases and underscoringsupplied!

+n a similar 3ein, +n re5 :icente #otto,$;9 cited in the :as4ue" Compliance, obser3ed that5

This Court, in +n re -elly, held the following5

The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has alwaysbeen considered as misbeha3ior, tending to obstruct the administration of 7ustice, and sub7ects such persons tocontempt proceedings! Parties ha3e a constitutional right to ha3e their causes tried fairly in court, by animpartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public clamor! E3ery citi"en has a profound personal interestin the enforcement of the fundamental right to ha3e 7ustice administered by the courts, under the protection andforms of law, free from outside coercion or interference! 8 8 8!

Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of thecourt in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated0 because if well founded it may enlighten the courtand contribute to the correction of an error if committed0 but if it is not well ta6en and ob3iously erroneous, itshould, in no way, influence the court in re3ersing or modifying its decision! 8 8 8!

8 8 8 8

To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately )so many blundersand in7ustices,) that is to say, that it has been deciding in fa3or of one party 6nowing that the law and 7ustice ison the part of the ad3erse party and not on the one in whose fa3or the decision was rendered, in many casesdecided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honestyand integrity of the members of this Court, and conse4uently to lower or degrade the administration of 7usticeby this Court! The #upreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwar6 to which the2ilipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grie3ances or protection of their rights when these are







7/21/2019 cases 22-36


trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Courtand belie3e that they cannot e8pect 7ustice therefrom, they might be dri3en to ta6e the law into their own hands,and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result! As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty!:icente #otto, li6e any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owesfidelity according to the oath he has ta6en as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice! Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty wouldbe resting on a 3ery sha6y foundation!$;% Emphases and underscoring supplied!

That the doctrinal pronouncements in these early cases are still good law can be easily gleaned e3en frommore recent 7urisprudence!

+n Choa 3! Chiongson,$;> the Court administrati3ely disciplined a lawyer, through the imposition of a fine, forma6ing malicious and unfounded criticisms of a 7udge in the guise of an administrati3e complaint and held,thus5

As an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred tas6 of administering 7ustice, gra3erresponsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respectto its officers! This does not mean, howe3er, that a lawyer cannot critici"e a 7udge! As we stated in Tiongco 3s!=on! Aguilar5

+t does not, howe3er, follow that 7ust because a lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot critici"e the courts!That is his right as a citi"en, and it is e3en his duty as an officer of the court to a3ail of such right! Thus, in +nRe5 Almacen 9$ #CRA >;, ><&@>'D $&<D, this Court e8plicitly declared5

=ence, as a citi"en and as officer of the court, a lawyer is e8pected not only to e8ercise the right, but also toconsider it his duty to a3ail of such right! No law may abridge this right! Nor is he )professionally answerable toa scrutiny into the official conduct of the 7udges, which would not e8pose him to legal animad3ersion as aciti"en!) Case of Austin, ;' Am ?ec! ><, >!

8 8 8 8

Ne3ertheless, such a right is not without limit! 2or, as this Court warned in Almacen5

But it is a cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill o3er the walls ofdecency and propriety! A wide chasm e8ists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander ofcourts and the 7udges thereof, on the other! +ntemperate and unfair criticism is a gross 3iolation of the duty ofrespect to courts! +t is such a misconduct, that sub7ects a lawyer to disciplinary action!

8 8 8 8

Elsewise stated, the right to critici"e, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of e8pression in theBill of Rights of the Constitution, must be e8ercised responsibly, for e3ery right carries with it a correspondingobligation!2reedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility! 8 8 8!

8 8 8 8

Proscribed then are, inter alia, the use of unnecessary language which 7eopardi"es high esteem in courts,creates or promotes distrust in 7udicial administration Rheem, supra, or tends necessarily to undermine theconfidence of people in the integrity of the members of this Court and to degrade the administration of 7usticeby this Court +n re5 #otto, '; Phil! >&> $&%&0 or of offensi3e and abusi3e language +n re5 Rafael Climaco, >>#CRA $D< $&<%0 or abrasi3e and offensi3e language Langson 3s! #alandanan, ' #CRA %; $&<>0 or ofdisrespectful, offensi3e, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or in a letter addressed tothe 7udge Ba7a 3s! Macandog, $>' #CRA $&'', citing the resolution of $& anuary $&'' in Phil! Public#chools Teachers Association 3s! Huisumbing, !R! No! <$'D, and Ceni"a 3s! #ebastian, $9D #CRA ;&>








7/21/2019 cases 22-36


$&'%0 or of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled@for remar6s #angalang 3s! +ntermediate Appellate Court,$<< #CRA '< $&'&!

Any criticism against a 7udge made in the guise of an administrati3e complaint which is clearly unfounded andimpelled by ulterior moti3e will not e8cuse the lawyer responsible therefor under his duty of fidelity to his client!8 8 8!$; Emphases and underscoring supplied!

+n #aberon 3! *arong,$;< where this Court found respondent lawyer guilty of simple misconduct for usingintemperate language in his pleadings and imposed a fine upon him, we had the occasion to state5

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates5

CAN1N ' @ A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professionalcolleagues, and shall a3oid harassing tactics against opposing counsel!

Rule '!D$ @ A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusi3e, offensi3e orotherwise improper!

C!"O" 11 ; ! (aG=er s.a(( observe an) maintain t.e resect )e to t.e corts an) to -)icia( oicers

an) s.o() insist on simi(ar con)ct b= ot.ers&

R(e 11&53 ; ! (aG=er s.a(( abstain rom scan)a(os, oensive or menacing (angage or be.aviorbeore t.e Corts&

To be sure, the ad3ersarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong languagein pursuit of their duty to ad3ance the interests of their clients!

oGever, G.i(e a (aG=er is entit(e) to resent .is case Git. vigor an) corage, sc. ent.siasm )oesnot -sti= t.e se o oensive an) absive (angage& $angage abon)s Git. cont(ess ossibi(itiesor one to be em.atic bt resect(, convincing bt not )erogator=, i((minating bt not oensive&

On man= occasions, t.e Cort .as remin)e) members o t.e /ar to abstain rom a(( oensive

ersona(it=and to ad3ance no fact pre7udicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless re4uiredby the 7ustice of the cause with which he is charged! +n 6eeping with the dignity of the legal profession, alawyerFs language e3en in his pleadings must be dignified!$;'

:erily, the accusatory and 3ilifying nature of certain portions of the #tatement e8ceeded the limits of faircomment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech! E3en +n the Matter of Petition for ?eclaratory Relief Re5 Constitutionality of Republic Act %''D, on"ales 3! Commission on Elections,$;& relied upon by respondentsin the Common Compliance, held that5

2rom the language of the specific constitutional pro3ision, it would appear that the right is not susceptible ofany limitation! No law may be passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press! The realities of life in acomple8 society preclude howe3er a literal interpretation! 2reedom of e8pression is not an absolute! +t would betoo much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain unfettered and unrestrained!

There are other societal 3alues that press for recognition! 8 8 8!$9D

Emphasis supplied!

1ne such societal 3alue that presses for recognition in the case at bar is the threat to 7udicial independenceand the orderly administration of 7ustice that immoderate, rec6less and unfair attac6s on 7udicial decisions andinstitutions pose! This Court held as much in aldi3ar 3! #andiganbayan and on"ales,$9$ wherewe in)einite(= ssen)e) a lawyer from the practice of law for issuing to the media statements grosslydisrespectful towards the Court in relation to a pending case, to wit5

Respondent on"ales is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech! No one see6s to deny him thatright, least of all this Court! /hat respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of e8pression,















7/21/2019 cases 22-36


li6e all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that freedom of e8pression needs on occasion to bead7usted to and accommodated with the re4uirements of e4ually important public interest! 1ne of thesefundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of 7ustice! There is no antinomy between free e8pression and the integrity of the system of administering 7ustice!2or the protection and maintenance of freedom of e8pression itself can be secured only within the conte8t of afunctioning and orderly system of dispensing 7ustice, within the conte8t, in other words, of 3iable independentinstitutions for deli3ery of 7ustice which are accepted by the general community! 8 8 8!$9; Emphases supplied!

2or this reason, the Court cannot uphold the 3iew of some respondents$99 that the #tatement presents no gra3eor imminent danger to a legitimate public interest!

The #how Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondentsF academic freedom!

+t is not contested that respondents herein are, by law and 7urisprudence, guaranteed academic freedom andundisputably, they are free to determine what they will teach their students and how they will teach! /e mustpoint out that there is nothing in the #how Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the sub7ect matterthey can teach and the manner of their instruction! Moreo3er, it is not inconsistent with the principle ofacademic freedom for this Court to sub7ect lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumaciousconduct and speech, coupled with undue inter3ention in fa3or of a party in a pending case, without obser3ingproper procedure, e3en if purportedly done in their capacity as teachers!

A no3el issue in3ol3ed in the present contro3ersy, for it has not been passed upon in any pre3ious case beforethis Court, is the 4uestion of whether lawyers who are also law professors can in3o6e academic freedom as adefense in an administrati3e proceeding for intemperate statements tending to pressure the Court or influencethe outcome of a case or degrade the courts!

Applying by analogy the CourtFs past treatment of the )free speech) defense in other bar discipline cases,academic freedom cannot be successfully in3o6ed by respondents in this case! The implicit ruling in the 7urisprudence discussed abo3e is that the constitutional right to freedom of e8pression of members of the Barmay be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to gi3e due respect to the courts and to uphold thepublicFs faith in the legal profession and the 7ustice system! To our mind, the reason that freedom of e8pressionmay be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic freedom of lawprofessors!

+t would do well for the Court to remind respondents that, in 3iew of the broad definition in Cayetano 3!Monsod,$9% lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law! .nli6e professors inother disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their oath to upholdthe ethical standards of the legal profession! Thus, their actions as law professors must be measured againstthe same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of theirbeing law professors is ine8tricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers!

E3en if the Court was willing to accept respondentsF proposition in the Common Compliance that their issuanceof the #tatement was in 6eeping with their duty to )participate in the de3elopment of the legal system byinitiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the impro3ement of the administration of 7ustice) underCanon % of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we cannot agree that they ha3e fulfilled that same duty in6eeping with the demands of Canons $, $$ and $9 to gi3e due respect to legal processes and the courts, and toa3oid conduct that tends to influence the courts! Members of the Bar cannot be selecti3e regarding which

canons to abide by gi3en particular situations! /ith more reason that law professors are not allowed thisindulgence, since they are e8pected to pro3ide their students e8emplars of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibility as a whole and not 7ust their preferred portions thereof!

The CourtFs rulings on the submissions regarding the charge of 3iolation of Canons $, $$ and $9!

=a3ing disposed of respondentsF main arguments of freedom of e8pression and academic freedom, the Courtconsiders here the other a3erments in their submissions!










7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/ith respect to good faith, respondentsF allegations presented two main ideas5 a the 3alidity of their positionregarding the plagiarism charge against ustice ?el Castillo, and b their pure moti3e to spur this Court to ta6ethe correct action on said issue!

The Court has already clarified that it is not the e8pression of respondentsF staunch belief that ustice ?elCastillo has committed a misconduct that the ma7ority of this Court has found so unbecoming in the #howCause Resolution! No matter how firm a lawyerFs con3iction in the righteousness of his cause there is simplyno e8cuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public beha3ior that tends to put the courts and the legalprofession into disrepute! This doctrine, which we ha3e repeatedly upheld in such cases as #alcedo, +n re Almacen and #aberong, should be applied in this case with more reason, as the respondents, not parties tothe 3inu"a case, denounced the Court and urged it to change its decision therein, in a public statement usingcontumacious language, which with temerity they subse4uently submitted to the Court for )proper disposition!)

That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the :inuya ?ecision in fa3or of the Malaya *olas was one of theob7ecti3es of the #tatement could be seen in the following paragraphs from the same5

And in light of the significance of this decision to the 4uest for 7ustice not only of 2ilipino women, but of womenelsewhere in the world who ha3e suffered the horrors of se8ual abuse and e8ploitation in times of war, theCourt cannot coldly deny relief and 7ustice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted te8ts!

8 8 8 8

9 The same breach and conse4uent disposition of the 3inu"a case does 3iolence to the primordial function ofthe #upreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of 7ustice to all those who ha3e been left without legal or e4uitablerecourse, such as the petitioners therein! $9> Emphases and underscoring supplied!

/hether or not respondentsF 3iews regarding the plagiarism issue in the 3inu"a case had 3alid basis waswholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech and conduct! These are two separate matters to beproperly threshed out in separate proceedings! The Court considers it highly inappropriate, if not tantamount todissembling, the discussion de3oted in one of the compliances arguing the guilt of ustice ?el Castillo! +n theCommon Compliance, respondents e3en go so far as to attach documentary e3idence to support theplagiarism charges against ustice ?el Castillo in the present contro3ersy! The ethics case of ustice ?elCastillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C, with the filing of a motion for reconsideration, was still pending at the time of

the filing of respondentsF submissions in this administrati3e case! As respondents themsel3es admit, they areneither parties nor counsels in the ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo! Notwithstanding their professedo3erriding interest in said ethics case, it is not proper procedure for respondents to bring up their plagiarismarguments here especially when it has no bearing on their own administrati3e case!

#till on moti3e, it is also proposed that the choice of language in the #tatement was intended for effecti3espeech0 that speech must be )forceful enough to ma6e the intended recipients listen!)$9 1ne wonders what sortof effect respondents were hoping for in branding this Court as, among others, callous, dishonest and lac6ing inconcern for the basic 3alues of decency and respect! The Court fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if we allow respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to effecti3ely plead their cases andpersuade others to their point of 3iew is to be offensi3e!

This brings to our mind the letters of ?r! Ellis and Prof! Tams which were deliberately 4uoted in full in thenarration of bac6ground facts to illustrate the sharp contrast between the ci3il tenor of these letters and theantagonistic irre3erence of the #tatement! +n truth, these foreign authors are the ones who would e8pectedly beaffected by any perception of misuse of their wor6s! Notwithstanding that they are beyond the disciplinary reachof this Court, they still ob3iously too6 pains to con3ey their ob7ections in a deferential and scholarly manner! +t isunfathomable to the Court why respondents could not do the same! These foreign authorsF letters underscorethe uni3ersality of the tenet that legal professionals must deal with each other in good faith and due respect!The mar6 of the true intellectual is one who can e8press his opinions logically and soberly without resort toe8aggerated rhetoric and unproducti3e recriminations!







7/21/2019 cases 22-36


As for the claim that the respondentsF noble intention is to spur the Court to ta6e )constructi3e action) on theplagiarism issue, the Court has some doubts as to its 3eracity! 2or if the #tatement was primarily meant for thisCourtFs consideration, why was the same published and reported in the media first before it was submitted tothis Court +t is more plausible that the #tatement was prepared for consumption by the general public anddesigned to capture media attention as part of the effort to generate interest in the most contro3ersial ground inthe #upplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed in the :inuya case by Atty! Ro4ue, who is respondentsFcolleague on the .P *aw faculty!

+n this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a lac6 of obser3ance of fidelity and due respect to theCourt, particularly when respondents 6new fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the :inuya decision and themerits of the :inuya decision itself, at the time of the #tatementFs issuance, were still both sub 7udice orpending final disposition of the Court! These facts ha3e been widely publici"ed! 1n this point, respondentsallege that at the time the #tatement was first drafted on uly ;<, ;D$D, they did not 6now of the constitution ofthe Ethics Committee and they had issued the #tatement under the belief that this Court intended to ta6e noaction on the ethics charge against ustice ?el Castillo! #till, there was a significant lapse of time from thedrafting and printing of the #tatement on uly ;<, ;D$D and its publication and submission to this Court in early August when the Ethics Committee had already been con3ened! +f it is true that the respondentsF outrage wasfueled by their perception of indifference on the part of the Court then, when it became 6nown that the Court didintend to ta6e action, there was nothing to pre3ent respondents from recalibrating the #tatement to ta6e thissuper3ening e3ent into account in the interest of fairness!

#pea6ing of the publicity this case has generated, we li6ewise find no merit in the respondentsF reliance on3arious news reports and commentaries in the print media and the internet as proof that they are being unfairly)singled out!) 1n the contrary, these same anne8es to the Common Compliance show that it is not enough forone to critici"e the Court to warrant the institution of disciplinary$9< or contempt$9' action! This Court ta6es intoaccount the nature of the criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the same on the udiciary! /henthe criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not ha3e a full grasp of legal issues or fromindi3iduals whose personal or other interests in ma6ing the criticism are ob3ious, the Court may perhapstolerate or ignore them! =owe3er, when law professors are the ones who appear to ha3e lost sight of theboundaries of fair commentary and worse, would 7ustify the same as an e8ercise of ci3il liberties, this Courtcannot remain silent for such silence would ha3e a gra3e implication on legal education in our country!

/ith respect to the 9> respondents named in the Common Compliance, considering that this appears to be thefirst time these respondents ha3e been in3ol3ed in disciplinary proceedings of this sort, the Court is willing to

gi3e them the benefit of the doubt that they were for the most part well@intentioned in the issuance of the#tatement! =owe3er, it is established in 7urisprudence that where the e8cessi3e and contumacious languageused is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating! As this Court e8pounded in #alcedo5

+n his defense, Attorney :icente ! 2rancisco states that it was not his intention to offend the court or to berecreant to the respect thereto but, unfortunately, there are his phrases which need no further comment!2urthermore, it is a well settled rule in all places where the same conditions and practice as those in this 7urisdiction obtain, that want of intention is no e8cuse from liability $9 C! !, %>! Neither is the fact that thephrases employed are 7ustified by the facts a 3alid defense5

)/here the matter is abusi3e or insulting, e3idence that the language used was 7ustified by the facts is notadmissible as a defense! Respect for the 7udicial office should always be obser3ed and enforced!) 4n reSte!art , $$' *a!, ';<0 %9 #!, %>>! #aid lac6 or want of intention constitutes at most an e8tenuation of liability in

this case, ta6ing into consideration Attorney :icente ! 2ranciscos state of mind, according to him when heprepared said motion! This court is disposed to ma6e such concession! =owe3er, in order to a3oid a recurrencethereof and to pre3ent others, by following the bad e8ample, from ta6ing the same course, this court considersit imperati3e to treat the case of said attorney with the 7ustice it deser3es! $9& Emphases supplied!

Thus, the 9> respondents named in the Common Compliance should, notwithstanding their claim of good faith,be reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons $, $$ and $9, to gi3e due respect to the courts and to refrainfrom intemperate and offensi3e language tending to influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate thecourts and the administration of 7ustice!









7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/ith respect to Prof! :as4ue", the Court fa3orably notes the differences in his Compliance compared to hiscolleagues! +n our 3iew, he was the only one among the respondents who showed true candor and sinceredeference to the Court! =e was able to gi3e a straightforward account of how he came to sign the #tatement!=e was candid enough to state that his agreement to the #tatement was in principle and that the reasonplagiarism was a )fair topic of discussion) among the .P *aw faculty prior to the promulgation of the 1ctober$;, ;D$D ?ecision in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C was the uncertainty brought about by a di3ision of opinion onwhether or not willful or deliberate intent was an element of plagiarism! =e was li6ewise willing to ac6nowledge

that he may ha3e been remiss in failing to assess the effect of the language of the #tatement and could ha3eused more care! =e did all this without ha3ing to retract his position on the plagiarism issue, without demandsfor undeser3ed reliefs as will be discussed below and without baseless insinuations of depri3ation of dueprocess or of pre7udgment! This is all that this Court e8pected from respondents, not for them to sacrifice theirprinciples but only that they recogni"e that they themsel3es may ha3e committed some ethical lapse in thisaffair! /e commend Prof! :a4ue" for showing that at least one of the respondents can grasp the true import ofthe #how Cause Resolution in3ol3ing them! 2or these reasons, the Court finds Prof! :as4ue"Fs Compliancesatisfactory!

As for Prof! *ynch, in 3iew of his Manifestation that he is a member of the Bar of the #tate of Minnesota and,therefore, not under the disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be e8cused from these proceedings!=owe3er, he should be reminded that while he is engaged as a professor in a Philippine law school he shouldstri3e to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his students e3en without the threat of sanctionfrom this Court! 2or e3en if one is not bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of thePhilippine Bar, ci3ility and respect among legal professionals of any nationality should be aspired for underuni3ersal standards of decency and fairness!

The CourtFs ruling on ?ean *eonenFs Compliance regarding the charge of 3iolation of Canon $D!

To recall, the #how Cause Resolution directed ?ean *eonen to show cause why he should not be disciplinarydealt with for 3iolation of Canon $D, Rules $D!D$, $D!D; and $D!D9 and for submitting a )dummy) that was not atrue and faithful reproduction of the signed #tatement!

+n his Compliance, ?ean *eonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrit= II was not a true and faithfulreproduction of the actual signed copy, Restoring Integrit= I, because loo6ing at the te8t or the body, therewere no differences between the two! =e attempts to downplay the discrepancies in the signature pages of thetwo 3ersions of the #tatement i!e!, Restoring Integrit= I and Restoring Integrit= II by claiming that it is bute8pected in )li3e) public manifestos with dynamic and e3ol3ing pages as more and more signatories add theirimprimatur thereto! =e li6ewise stresses that he is not administrati3ely liable because he did not misrepresentthe members of the .P *aw faculty who ).a) agreed with the Restoring +ntegrity #tatement proper andJor whohad e8pressed their desire to be signatories thereto!)$%D

To begin with, the Court cannot subscribe to ?ean *eonenFs implied 3iew that the signatures in the #tatementare not as significant as its contents! *i3e public manifesto or not, the #tatement was formally submitted to thisCourt at a specific point in time and it should reflect accurately its signatories at that point! The 3alue of the#tatement as a .P *aw 2aculty #tatement lies precisely in the identities of the persons who ha3e signed it,since the #tatementFs persuasi3e authority mainly depends on the reputation and stature of the persons whoha3e endorsed the same! +ndeed, it is apparent from respondentsF e8planations that their own belief in the)importance) of their positions as .P law professors prompted them to publicly spea6 out on the matter of theplagiarism issue in the :inuya case!

2urther, in our assessment, the true cause of ?ean *eonenFs predicament is the fact that he did not from thebeginning submit the signed copy, Restoring +ntegrity +, to this Court on August $$, ;D$D and, instead,submitted Restoring +ntegrity ++ with its retyped or )reformatted) signature pages! +t would turn out, according to?ean *eonenFs account, that there were errors in the retyping of the signature pages due to lapses of hisunnamed staff! 2irst, an unnamed administrati3e officer in the deanFs office ga3e the dean inaccurateinformation that led him to allow the inclusion of ustice Mendo"a as among the signatories of Restoring+ntegrity ++! #econd, an unnamed staff also failed to type the name of Atty! Armo3it when encoding the signaturepages of Restoring +ntegrity ++ when in fact he had signed Restoring +ntegrity +!



7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The Court can understand why for purposes of posting on a bulletin board or a website a signed document mayha3e to be reformatted and signatures may be indicated by the notation #?! This is not unusual! /e arewilling to accept that the reformatting of documents meant for posting to eliminate blan6s is necessitated by3andalism concerns!

=owe3er, what is unusual is the submission to a court, especially this Court, of a signed document for theCourtFs consideration that did not contain the actual signatures of its authors! +n most cases, it isthe original signed document that is transmitted to the Court or at the 3ery least a photocopy of the actualsigned document! ?ean *eonen has not offered any e8planation why he de3iated from this practice with hissubmission to the Court of Restoring +ntegrity ++ on August $$, ;D$D! There was nothing to pre3ent the deanfrom submitting Restoring +ntegrity + to this Court e3en with its blan6s and unsigned portions! ?ean *eonencannot claim fears of 3andalism with respect to court submissions for court employees are accountable for thecare of documents and records that may come into their custody! Let, ?ean *eonen deliberately chose tosubmit to this Court the facsimile that did not contain the actual signatures and his silence on the reasontherefor is in itself a display of lac6 of candor!

#till, a careful reading of ?ean *eonenFs e8planations yield the answer! +n the course of his e8planation of hiswillingness to accept his administrati3e officerFs claim that ustice Mendo"a agreed to be indicated as asignatory, ?ean *eonen admits in a footnote that other professors had li6ewise only authori"ed him to indicatethem as signatories and had not in fact signed the #tatement! Thus, at around the time Restoring +ntegrity ++

was printed, posted and submitted to this Court, at least one purported signatory thereto had not actuallysigned the same! Contrary to ?ean *eonenFs proposition, that is precisely tantamount to ma6ing it appear tothis Court that a person or persons participated in an act when such person or persons did not!

/e are surprised that someone li6e ?ean *eonen, with his reputation for perfection and stringent standards ofintellectual honesty, could proffer the e8planation that there was no misrepresentation when he allowed at leastone person to be indicated as ha3ing actually signed the #tatement when all he had was a 3erbalcommunication of an intent to sign! +n the case of ustice Mendo"a, what he had was only hearsay informationthat the former intended to sign the #tatement! +f ?ean *eonen was truly determined to obser3e candor andtruthfulness in his dealings with the Court, we see no reason why he could not ha3e waited until all theprofessors who indicated their desire to sign the #tatement had in fact signed before transmitting the #tatementto the Court as a duly signed document! +f it was truly impossible to secure some signatures, such as that ofustice Mendo"a who had to lea3e for abroad, then ?ean *eonen should ha3e 7ust resigned himself to thesignatures that he was able to secure!

/e cannot imagine what urgent concern there was that he could not wait for actual signatures beforesubmission of the #tatement to this Court! As respondents all asserted, they were neither parties to norcounsels in the :inuya case and the ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo! The #tatement was neither apleading with a deadline nor a re4uired submission to the Court0 rather, it was a 3oluntary submission that?ean *eonen could do at any time!

+n sum, the Court li6ewise finds ?ean *eonenFs Compliance unsatisfactory! =owe3er, the Court is willing toascribe these isolated lapses in 7udgment of ?ean *eonen to his misplaced "eal in pursuit of his ob7ecti3es! +ndue consideration of ?ean *eonenFs professed good intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish ?ean*eonen for failing to obser3e full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as re4uired under Canon$D!

RespondentsF re4uests for a hearing, for productionJpresentation of e3idence bearing on the plagiarism andmisrepresentation issues in !R! No! $;;9D and A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C, and for access to the records of A!M!No! $D@<@$<@#C are unmeritorious!

+n the Common Compliance, respondents named therein as6ed for alternati3e reliefs should the Court find their Compliance unsatisfactory, that is, that the #how Cause Resolution be set for hearing and for that purpose,they be allowed to re4uire the production or presentation of witnesses and e3idence bearing on the plagiarismand misrepresentation issues in the 3inu"a case !R! No! $;;9D and the plagiarism case against ustice?el Castillo A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C and to ha3e access to the records of, and e3idence that were presented ormay be presented in the ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo! The prayer for a hearing and for access to the

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


records of A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C was substantially echoed in ?ean *eonenFs separate Compliance! +n Prof!uan@BautistaFs Compliance, she similarly e8pressed the sentiment that )if the Restoring +ntegrity #tatementcan be considered indirect contempt, under #ection 9 of Rule <$ of the Rules of Court, such may be punishedonly after charge and hearing!)$%$ +t is this group of respondentsF premise that these reliefs are necessary forthem to be accorded full due process!

The Court finds this contention unmeritorious!

2irstly, it would appear that the confusion as to the necessity of a hearing in this case springs largely from itscharacteri"ation as a special ci3il action for indirect contempt in the ?issenting 1pinion of ustice #ereno tothe 1ctober $&, ;D$D #how Cause Resolution and her reliance therein on the ma7orityFs purported failure tofollow the procedure in Rule <$ of the Rules of Court as her main ground for opposition to the #how CauseResolution!

=owe3er, once and for all, it should be clarified that this is not an indirect contempt proceeding and Rule <$which re4uires a hearing has no application to this case! As e8plicitly ordered in the #how Cause Resolutionthis case was doc6eted as an administrati3e matter!

The rule that is rele3ant to this contro3ersy is Rule $9&@B, #ection $9, on disciplinary proceedings initiated motuproprio by the #upreme Court, to wit5

#EC! $9! Supre%e &ourt 4n'estigators.(+n proceedings initiated %otu proprio by the #upreme Court or inother proceedings when the interest of 7ustice so re4uires, the #upreme Court ma= refer the case forin3estigation to the #olicitor eneral or to any officer of the #upreme Court or 7udge of a lower court, in whichcase the in3estigation shall proceed in the same manner pro3ided in sections to $$ hereof, sa3e that there3iew of the report of in3estigation shall be conducted directly by the #upreme Court! Emphasis supplied!

2rom the foregoing pro3ision, it cannot be denied that a formal in3estigation, through a referral to the specifiedofficers, is merely discretionary, not man)ator= on the Court! 2urthermore, it is only if the Court deems suchan in3estigation necessary that the procedure in #ections to $$ of Rule $9&@A will be followed!

As respondents are fully aware, in general, administrati3e proceedings do not re4uire a trial type hearing! /eha3e held that5

The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrati3e proceedings,an opportunity to e8plain ones side or an opportunity to see6 a reconsideration of the action or rulingcomplained of! /hat the law prohibits is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard, hence, a party cannotfeign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side! A formal or trialtype hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the re4uirements of which aresatisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to e8plain their side of thecontro3ersy!$%; Emphases supplied!

+n relation to bar discipline cases, we ha3e had the occasion to rule in Pena 3! Aparicio$%9 that5

?isciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis! Neither purely ci3il nor purely criminal, they do notin3ol3e a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an in3estigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its

officers! Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution! Accordingly, there isneither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein! +t may be initiated by the Court %otu proprio! Public interest is itsprimary ob7ecti3e, and the real 4uestion for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to beallowed the pri3ileges as such! =ence, in the e8ercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon amember of the Bar to account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in 3iew of preser3ing thepurity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of 7ustice by purging the profession ofmembers who by their misconduct ha3e pro3ed themsel3es no longer worthy to be entrusted with the dutiesand responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney! +n such posture, there can thus be no occasion tospea6 of a complainant or a prosecutor !$%% Emphases supplied!













7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+n Huery of Atty! -aren M! #il3erio@Buffe, 2ormer Cler6 of Court S Br! '$, Romblon S 1n the Prohibition fromEngaging in the Pri3ate Practice of *aw,$%> we further obser3ed that5

+n se3eral cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further in4uiry or resort to any formal in3estigationwhere the facts on record sufficiently pro3ided the basis for the determination of their administrati3e liability!

+n Prudential Ban6 3! Castro, the Court disbarred a lawyer without need of any further in3estigation afterconsidering his actions based on records showing his unethical misconduct0 the misconduct not only castdishonor on the image of both the Bench and the Bar, but was also inimical to public interest and welfare! +nthis regard, the Court too6 7udicial notice of se3eral cases handled by the errant lawyer and his cohorts thatre3ealed their %odus operandi in circum3enting the payment of the proper 7udicial fees for the astronomicalsums they claimed in their cases! The Court held that those cases sufficiently pro3ided the basis for thedetermination of respondents administrati3e liability, without need for further in4uiry into the matter under theprinciple of res ipsa loquitur !

Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in Richards 3! Asoy, that no e3identiary hearing is re4uired beforethe respondent may be disciplined for professional misconduct already established by the facts on record!

8 8 8 8

These cases clearly show that the absence of any formal charge against andJor formal in3estigation of anerrant lawyer do not preclude the Court from immediately e8ercising its disciplining authority, as long as theerrant lawyer or 7udge has been gi3en the opportunity to be heard! As we stated earlier, Atty! Buffe has beenafforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter@4uery and Manifestation filedbefore this Court!$% Emphases supplied!

.nder the rules and 7urisprudence, respondents clearly had no right to a hearing and their reser3ation of a rightthey do not ha3e has no effect on these proceedings! Neither ha3e they shown in their pleadings any 7ustification for this Court to call for a hearing in this instance! They ha3e not specifically statedwhat rele3ant e3idence, documentary or testimonial, they intend to present in their defense that will necessitatea formal hearing!

+nstead, it would appear that they intend to present records, e3idence, and witnesses bearing on the plagiarism

and misrepresentation issues in the 3inu"a case and in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C on the assumption that thefindings of this Court which were the bases of the #how Cause Resolution were made in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C,or were related to the conclusions of the Court in the ?ecision in that case! This is the primary reason for theirre4uest for access to the records and e3idence presented in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C!

This assumption on the part of respondents is erroneous! To illustrate, the only incident in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#Cthat is rele3ant to the case at bar is the fact that the submission of the actual signed copy of the #tatement orRestoring +ntegrity +, as ?ean *eonen referred to it happened there! Apart from that fact, it bears repeating thatthe proceedings in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C, the ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo, is a separate andindependent matter from this case!

To find the bases of the statements of the Court in the #how Cause Resolution that the respondents issued a#tatement with language that the Court deems ob7ectionable during the pendency of the :inuya case and the

ethics case against ustice ?el Castillo, respondents need to go no further than the four corners of the#tatement itself, its 3arious 3ersions, news reportsJcolumns many of which respondents themsel3es suppliedto this Court in their Common Compliance and internet sources that are already of public 6nowledge!

Considering that what respondents are chiefly re4uired to e8plain are the language of the #tatement and thecircumstances surrounding the drafting, printing, signing, dissemination, etc., of its 3arious 3ersions, the Courtdoes not see how any witness or e3idence in the ethics case of ustice ?el Castillo could possibly shed light onthese facts! To be sure, these facts are within the 6nowledge of respondents and if there is any e3idence onthese matters the same would be in their possession!





7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/e find it significant that in ?ean *eonenFs Compliance he narrated how as early as #eptember ;D$D, i!e!,before the ?ecision of this Court in the ethics case of ustice ?el Castillo on 1ctober $;, ;D$D and before the1ctober $&, ;D$D #how Cause Resolution, retired #upreme Court ustice :icente :! Mendo"a, after beingshown a copy of the #tatement upon his return from abroad, predicted that the Court would ta6e some form ofaction on the #tatement! By simply reading a hard copy of the #tatement, a reasonable person, e3en one who)fundamentally agreed) with the #tatementFs principles, could foresee the possibility of court action on thesame on an implicit recognition that the #tatement, as worded, is not a matter this Court should simply let pass!

This belies respondentsF claim that it is necessary for them to refer to any record or e3idence in A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#C in order to di3ine the bases for the #how Cause Resolution!

+f respondents ha3e chosen not to include certain pieces of e3idence in their respecti3e compliances or chosennot to ma6e a full defense at this time, because they were counting on being granted a hearing, that isrespondentsF own loo6@out! +ndeed, law professors of their stature are supposed to be aware of the abo3e 7urisprudential doctrines regarding the non@necessity of a hearing in disciplinary cases! They should bear theconse4uence of the ris6 they ha3e ta6en!

Thus, respondentsF re4uests for a hearing and for access to the records of, and e3idence presented in, A!M!No! $D@<@$<@#C should be denied for lac6 of merit!

! ina( Gor)

+n a democracy, members of the legal community are hardly e8pected to ha3e monolithic 3iews on any sub7ect,be it a legal, political or social issue! E3en as lawyers passionately and 3igorously propound their points of 3iewthey are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal profession! This Court is certainly not claiming that itshould be shielded from criticism! All the Court demands is the same respect and courtesy that one lawyerowes to another under established ethical standards! All lawyers, whether they are 7udges, court employees,professors or pri3ate practitioners, are officers of the Court and ha3e 3oluntarily ta6en an oath, as anindispensable 4ualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct themsel3es with good fidelity towards thecourts! There is no e8emption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of their status in theacademic community or the law school to which they belong!

/=ERE21RE, this administrati3e matter is decided as follows5

$ /ith respect to Prof! :as4ue", after fa3orably noting his submission, the Court finds hisCompliance to be satisfactory!

; The Common Compliance of 9> respondents, namely, Attys! Mar3ic M!:!2! *eonen, 2roilan M!Bacungan, Pacifico A! Agabin, Merlin M! Magallona, #al3ador T! Carlota, Carmelo :! #ison, PatriciaR!P! #al3ador ?away, ?ante B! atmaytan, Theodore 1! Te, 2lorin T! =ilbay, ay *! Batongbacal,E3elyn *eo ?! Battad, wen ! ?e :era, #olomon 2! *umba, Rommel ! Casis, ose erardo A! Alampay, Miguel R! Armo3it, Arthur P! Autea, Rosa Maria ! Bautista, Mar6 R! Bocobo, ?an P! Calica,Tristan A! Catindig, #andra Marie 1! Coronel, Rosario 1! allo, Concepcion *! ardele"a, Antonio!M! *a :iKa, Carina C! *aforte"a, ose C! *aureta, Rodolfo Noel #! Huimbo, Antonio M! #antos,meleen 2aye B! Tomboc, Nicholas 2eli8 *! Ty, E3alyn ! .rsua, #usan ?! :illanue3a and ?ina ?!*ucenario, is found .N#AT+#2ACT1RL! These 9> respondent law professors are reminded of theirlawyerly duty, under Canons $, $$ and $9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to gi3e duerespect to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensi3e language tending to influence the

Court on pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of 7ustice and warned thatthe same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more se3erely!

9 The separate Compliance of ?ean Mar3ic M!:!2! *eonen regarding the charge of 3iolation of Canon$D is found .N#AT+#2ACT1RL! =e is further A?M1N+#=E? to be more mindful of his duty, as amember of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a ?ean and professor of law, to obser3e full candor andhonesty in his dealings with the Court and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall bedealt with more se3erely!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


% Prof! *ynch, who is not a member of the Philippine bar, is e8cused from these proceedings!=owe3er, he is reminded that while he is engaged as a professor in a Philippine law school he shouldstri3e to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his students e3en without the threat ofsanction from this Court!

> 2inally, respondentsF re4uests for a hearing and for access to the records of A!M! No! $D@<@$<@#Care denied for lac6 of merit!

#1 1R?ERE?!

TERESIT! %& $EO"!RDO;DE C!STRO Associate ustice

/E C1NC.R5

RE"!TO C& CORO"!Chief ustice

#ee ?issenting 1pinion!"TO"IO T& C!RPIO Associate ustice

Please see ?issenting 1pinionCO"CIT! C!RPIO MOR!$ES Associate ustice

PRES/ITERO %& >E$!SCO, %R& Associate ustice

1n lea3e!"TO"IO EDU!RDO /& "!CUR!V

Associate ustice

+ certify the Mr! ustice Brion left hisconcurring 3ote

!RTURO D& /RIO" Associate ustice

DIOSD!DO M& PER!$T! Associate ustice

$UC!S P& /ERS!MI" Associate ustice

No PartM!RI!"O C& DE$ C!STI$$OVV

Associate ustice

RO/ERTO !& !/!D Associate ustice

Pls see #eparate 1pinionM!RTI" S& >I$$!R!M!, %R&

Associate ustice

%OSE PORTU#!$ PERE' Associate ustice

%OSE C!TR!$ ME"DO'! Associate ustice

+ dissent and reser3e the right to issue a #eparate 1pinionM!RI! $OURDES P& !& SE

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/E$;!IR >I$$!#E !SSOCI!TIO", I"C&, petitioner,

3s!

TE COURT O !PPE!$S, an) EDU!RDO an) /UE"! ROMU!$DE' respondents!

#&R& "o& <818 December , 1988

/E$;!IR >I$$!#E !SSOCI!TIO", I"C&, petitioner,

3s!

COURT O !PPE!$S, DO$ORES I$$E, an) %& ROMERO H !SSOCI!TES, respondents!

#&R& "o& 881 December , 1988

/E$;!IR >I$$!#E !SSOCI!TIO", I"C, petitioner,

3s!

COURT O !PPE!$S, >IO$ET! MO"C!$, an) M!%!$ DE>E$OPME"T CORPOR!TIO", respondents!

Sangco, Anastacio, &astaneda G 1uran a! +ffice for petitioners G pri'ate inter'enors petitioners.

Raul S. Sison a! +ffices for inter'enorpetitioner elAir 3illage Association, 4nc. Renato . 1ela Fuente for

respondent A"ala &orporation.

<.R. o. D78D9H

Raul S. Sison a! +ffices for petitioner.

Sergio . <uadiz for pri'ate respondents.

<.R. o. D987H

Raul S. Sison a! +ffices for petitioner.

<ruba, -anli%co a%so and Apuhin a! +ffices for respondents.

<.R. o. DIBI5H

Fun: G Associates for petitioners.

-ee -o%as G Associates for respondents.

<.R. o. I55IBH

Fun: G Associates for petitioner.

&astillo, a%an, -an G Associates for pri'ate respondents.

S!RMIE"TO, J.:

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Before the Court are fi3e consolidated petitions, 1 doc6eted as !R! Nos! <$$&, <%9<, <9&%, <'$';, and

';;'$ hereof, in the nature of appeals by certiorari under Rule %> of the Rules of Court from fi3e

decisions of the Court of Appeals, denying specific performance and damages!

The proceedings were commenced at the first instance by ose #angalang, 7oined by his wife *utgarda

#angalang, both residents of No! $$D upiter #treet, Ma6ati, Metro Manila !R! No! <$$& to enforce by

specific performance restricti3e easement upon property, specifically the Bel@ Air :illage subdi3ision in Ma6ati,

Metro Manila, pursuant to stipulations embodied in the deeds of sale co3ering the subdi3ision, and for

damages! *ater, the #angalangs were 7oined by 2eli8 aston, a resident of No! % upiter #treet of the same

municipality, and by Mr! and Mrs! ose and Alicia Briones, both of No! upiter #treet! Pending further

proceedings, the Bel@Air :illage Association, +nc! BA:A, an incorporated homeowners association, entered its

appearance as plaintiff@in@inter3ention!

BA:A itself had brought its own complaints, four in number, li6ewise for specific performance and damages to

enforce the same deed restrictions! #ee !R! Nos! <%9<, <9&%, <'$';, and ';;'$!

ANTECE?ENT# 2ACT#

+! !R! No! <$$&

The facts are stated in the decision appealed from! /e 4uote5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

$ Bel@Air :illage is located north of Buendia A3enue e8tension now #en! il ! Puyat A3e!

across a stretch of commercial bloc6 from Reposo #treet in the west up to odiac #treet in the

east, /hen Bel@Air :illage was planned, this bloc6 between Reposo and odiac #treets

ad7oining Buendia A3enue in front of the 3illage was designated as a commercial bloc6!

Copuyoc T#N, p! $D, 2eb! $;, $&';!

; Bel@Air :illage was owned and de3eloped into a residential subdi3ision in the $&>Ds by

Ma6ati ?e3elopment Corporation hereinafter referred to as M?C, which in $&' was merged

with appellant Ayala Corporation!

9 Appellees@spouses #angalang reside at No! $$1 upiter #treet between Ma6ati A3enue

and Reposo #treet0 appellees@spouses aston reside at No! % upiter #treet between Ma6ati

A3enue and odiac #treet0 appellees@spouses Briones reside at No! upiter #treet also

between Ma6ati A3enue and odiac #treet0 while appellee Bel@Air :illage Association, +nc!

hereinafter referred to as BA:A is the homeowners association in Bel@Air :illage which

ta6es care of the sanitation, security, traffic regulations and general welfare of the 3illage!

% The lots which were ac4uired by appellees #angalang and spouse aston and spouseand Briones and spouse in $&D, $&>< and $&>', respecti3ely, were all sold by M?C sub7ect

to certain conditions and easements contained in ?eed Restrictions which formed a part of

each deed of sale! The pertinent pro3isions in said ?eed Restrictions, which are common to

all lot owners in Bel@Air :illage, are as follows5

+@BE*@A+R A##1C+AT+1N

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The owner of this lotJs or his successors in interest is re4uired to be and is automatically a

member of the Bel@Air Association and must abide by such rules and regulations laid down by

the Association in the interest of the sanitation, security and the general welfare of the

community!

The association will also pro3ide for and collect assessments, which will constitute as a lien

on the property 7unior only to liens of the go3ernment for ta8es and to 3oluntary mortgages forsufficient consideration entered into in good faith!

++@.#E 12 *1T#

#ub7ect to such amendments and additional restrictions, reser3ations, ser3itudes, etc!, as the

Bel@ Air Association may from time to time adopt and prescribe, this lot is sub7ect to the

following restrictions5

a! This lotJs shall not be subdi3ided! =owe3er, three or more lots may be consolidated and

subdi3ided into a lesser number of lots pro3ided that none of the resulting lots be smaller in

area than the smallest lot before the consolidation and that the consolidation and subdi3ision

plan be duly appro3ed by the go3erning body of the Bel@Air Association!

b! This lotJs shall only be used for residential purposes!

c! 1nly one single family house may be constructed on a single lot, although separate

ser3ants 4uarters or garage may be built!

d! Commercial or ad3ertising signs shall not be placed, constructed, or erected on this lot!

Name plates and professional signs of homeowners are permitted so long as they do not

e8ceed 'D 8 %D centimeters in si"e!

e! No cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, duc6s, geese, roosters or rabbits shall be maintained in thelot, e8cept that pets may be maintained but must be controlled in accordance with the rulings

of the Association! The term )pets includes chic6ens not in commercial 4uantities!

f! The property is sub7ect to an easement of two ; meters within the lot and ad7acent to the

rear and sides thereof not fronting a street for the purpose of drainage, sewage, water and

other public facilities as may be necessary and desirable0 and the owner, lessee or his

representati3e shall permit access thereto by authori"ed representati3es of the Bel@Air

Association or public utility entities for the purposes for which the easement is created!

g! This lot shall not be used for any immoral or illegal trade or acti3ity!

h! The owner andJor lessee of this lotJs shall at all times 6eep the grass cut and trimmed toreduce the fire ha"ard of the property!

888 888 888

:+@TERM 12 RE#TR+CT+1N#

The foregoing restrictions shall remain in force for fifty years from anuary $>, $&><, unless

sooner cancelled in its entirety by two thirds 3ote of members in good standing of the Bel@Air

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Association! =owe3er, the Association may, from time to time, add new ones, amend or

abolish particular restrictions or parts thereof by ma7ority rule!

:++@@EN21RCEMENT 12 RE#TR+CT+1N#

The foregoing restrictions may be en7oined andJor enforced by court action by the Bel@Air

Association, or by the Ma6ati ?e3elopment Corporation or its assigns, or by any registered

owner of land within the boundaries of the Bel@Air #ubdi3ision #ub@di3ision plan P#?@%&;;

and *ot <@B, Psd@%<'%' or by any member in good standing of the Bel@Air association!) E8h!

$ @b0 E8h! ;;, Anne8 )B)! Appellants Brief, pp! %@

> /hen M?C sold the abo3e@mentioned lots to appellees predecessors@in@interest, the

whole stretch of the commercial bloc6 between Buendia A3enue and upiter #treet, from

Reposo #treet in the west to odiac #treet in the east, was still unde3eloped! Access,

therefore, to Bel@Air :illage was opened to all 6inds of people and e3en animals! #o in $&,

although it was not part of the original plan, M?C constructed a fence or wall on the

commercial bloc6 along upiter #treet! +n $&<D, the fence or wall was partly destroyed by

typhoon )Loling!) The destroyed portions were subse4uently rebuilt by the appellant!

Copuyoc T#N, pp! 9$@9%, 2eb! $;, $&';! /hen upiter #treet was widened in $&<; by 9!>meters, the fence or wall had to be destroyed! .pon re4uest of BA:A, the wall was rebuilt

inside the boundary of the commercial bloc6! Copuyoc T#N, pp! %%%<, 2eb! $;,$&';!

/hen the appellant finally decided to subdi3ide and sell the lots in the commercial bloc6

between Buendia and upiter, BA:A wrote the appellant on May &, $&<;, re4uesting for

confirmation on the use of the commercial lots! The appellant replied on May $, $&<;,

informing BA:A of the restrictions intended to be imposed in the sale and use of the lots!

Among these restrictions are5 that the building shall ha3e a set bac6 of $& meters0 and that

with respect to 3ehicular traffic along Buendia A3enue, entrance only will be allowed, and

along upiter #treet and side streets, both entrance and e8it will be allowed!

< 1n une 9D, $&<;, appellant informed BA:A that in a few months it shall subdi3ide and sell

the commercial lots bordering the north side of Buendia A3enue E8tension from Reposo

#treet up to odiac #treet! Appellant also informed BA:A that it had ta6en all precautions and

will impose upon the commercial lot owners deed restrictions which will harmoni"e and blend

with the de3elopment and welfare of Bel@Air :illage! Appellant further applied for special

membership in BA:A of the commercial lot owners! A copy of the deed restrictions for the

commercial lots was also enclosed! The proposed deed restrictions shall include the $& meter

set bac6 of buildings from upiter #treet, the re4uirement for par6ing space within the lot of

one $ par6ing slot for e3ery se3enty fi3e <> meters of office space in the building and the

limitation of 3ehicular traffic along Buendia to entrance only, but allowing both 3ehicular

entrance and 3ehicular e8it through upiter #treet and any side street!

+n its letter of uly $D, $&<;, BA:A ac6nowledged the abo3e letter of appellant and informedthe latter that the application for special membership of the commercial lot owners in BA:A

would be submitted to BA:As board of go3ernors for decision!

' 1n #eptember ;>, $&<;, appellant notified BA:A that, after a careful study, it was finally

decided that the height limitation of buildings on the commercial lots shall be increased from

$;!> meters to $> meters! Appellant further informed BA:A that upiter #treet shall be

widened by 9!> meters to impro3e traffic flow in said street! BA:A did not reply to said letter,

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


but on anuary ;;, $&<9, BA:A wrote a letter to the appellant informing the latter that the

Association had assessed the appellant, as special member of the association, the amount of

P%D,<&>!DD based on '$,>&D s4uare meters at P!>D per s4uare meter representing the

membership dues to the commercial lot owners for the year $&<9, and re4uested the

appellant to remit the amount which its board of go3ernors had already included in its current

budget! +n reply, appellant on anuary 9$, $&<9 informed BA:A that due to the widening of

upiter #treet, the area of the lots which were accepted by the Association as members wasreduced to <,<; s4uare meters! Thus, the corresponding dues at P!>D per s4uare meter

should be reduced to P9',99!DD! This amount, therefore, was remitted by the appellant to

BA:A! #ince then, the latter has been collecting membership dues from the owners of the

commercial lots as special members of the Association! As a matter of fact, the dues were

increased se3eral times! +n $&'D, the commercial lot owners were already being charged dues

at the rate of P9!DD per s4uare meter! ?omingo, T#N, p! 9, March $&, $&'D! At this rate, the

total membership dues of the commercial lot owners amount to P;9D,$<'! DD annually based

on the total area of <,<; s4uare meters of the commercial lots!

& Meantime, on April %, $&<>, the municipal council of Ma6ati enacted its ordinance No! '$,

pro3iding for the "onification of Ma6ati E8h! $'! .nder this 1rdinance, Bel@Air :illage was

classified as a Class A Residential one, with its boundary in the south e8tending to the center line of upiter #treet E8h! $'@A!

Thus, Chapter +++, Article $, #ection 9!D9, par! 2! of the 1rdinance pro3ides5

2! Bel@Air :illage area, as bounded on the N by Polaris and Mercedes streets and on the NE

by Estrella #treet0 on the #E by Epifanio de los #antos A3enue and on the #/ by the center

line of upiter #treet! Then bounded on the N by the abandoned MRR Pasig *ine0 on the E by

Ma6ati A3enue0 on the # by the center line of upiter #treet and on the / by the center line of

Reposo #treet!) E8h! $'@A

#imilarly, the Buendia A3enue E8tension area was classified as Administrati3e 1ffice one

with its boundary in the North@North East E8tending also up to the center line of upiter #treetE8h! $'b!

Thus, Chapter +++, Article +, #ection 9!D>, par! C! of the 1rdinance pro3ides5

C! The Buendia A3enue E8tension areas, as bounded on the N@NE by the center line of

upiter #treet, on the #E by Epifanio de los #antos A3enue0 on the #/ by Buendia A3enue

and on the N/ by the center line of Reposo #treet, then on the NE by Malugay #treet0 on the

#E by Buendia A3enue and on the / by Ayala A3enue E8tension!) E8h! $'@B

The Residential one and the Administrati3e 1ffice one, therefore, ha3e a common

boundary along the center line of upiter #treet!

The abo3e "oning under 1rdinance No! '$ of Ma6ati was later followed under the

Comprehensi3e oning 1rdinance for the National Capital Region adopted by the Metro

Manila Commission as 1rdinance '$ @D$ on March $%, $&'$ E8h! $&! =owe3er, under this

ordinance, Bel@Air :illage is simply bounded in the #outh@#outheast by upiter #treet@not

anymore up to the center line of upiter #treet E8h! B! *i6ewise, the bloc6deep strip along

the northwest side of Buendia A3enue E8tension from Reposo to E?#A was classified as a

=igh +ntensity Commercial one E8h! $&@c!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Thus, the oning ?istrict Boundaries @Ma6ati, in Anne8 B of the 1rdinance pro3ides5

R@+@*ow +ntensity Residential

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

%! Bel@Air $, 9, %

Bounded on the North @@ !P! Ri"al and Amapola #t!

#outh @ Roc6well

Northwest @ P! Burgos

#outheast @ upiter

#outhwest @ Epifanio de los #antos A3e! E?#A

>! Bel@Air ;

Bounded on the Northwest @ !P! Ri"al

#outhwest @ Ma6ati A3enue

#outh @@@ upiter

#outheast @@ Pasig *ine

East @ #outh A3enue) E8h! $&@b

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

C@9@=igh +ntensity Commercial one

;! A bloc6 deep strip along the northwest side of Buendia A3e! E8t! from Reposo to E?#A!)

E8h, $&@c

.nder the abo3e "oning classifications, upiter #treet, therefore, is a common boundary of

Bel@Air :illage and the commercial "one!

$D Meanwhile, in $&<;, BA:A had installed gates at strategic locations across upiter #treetwhich were manned and operated by its own security guards who were employed to maintain,

super3ise and enforce traffic regulations in the roads and streets of the 3illage! :illa3icencio,

T#N, pp, ;;@;>, 1ct! 9D, $&'D0 BA:A Petition, par! $$, E8h! $<!

Then, on anuary $<, $&<<, the 1ffice of the Mayor of Ma6ati wrote BA:A directing that, in the

interest of public welfare and for the purpose of easing traffic congestion, the following streets

in Bel@Air :illage should be opened for public use5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Amapola #treet @ from Estrella #treet to Mercedes #treet

Amapola #treet @7unction of Palma #treet gate going to ! :illena #treet

Mercedes #treet @@ from E?#A to +melda A3enue and Amapola 7unction

odiac #treet @ from Mercedes #treet to Buendia A3enue

upiter #treet @@ from odiac #treet to Reposo #treet connecting Metropolitan A3enue to

Pasong Tamo and :! Cru" E8tension intersection

Neptune #treet @ from Ma6ati A3enue to Reposo #treet 1rbit #treet @ from 2! obel@Candelaria

intersection to upiter #treet

Paseo de Ro8as @ from Mercedes #treet to Buendia A3enue E8h! $<, Anne8 A, BA:A Petition

1n 2ebruary $D, $&<<, BA:A wrote the Mayor of Ma6ati, e8pressing the concern of the

residents about the opening of the streets to the general public, and re4uesting specifically theindefinite postponement of the plan to open upiter #treet to public 3ehicles! E8h! $<, Anne8

B, BA:A Petition!

=owe3er, BA:A 3oluntarily opened to the public Amapola, Mercedes, odiac, Neptune and

Paseo de Ro8as streets! E8h! $<@A, Answer of Ma6ati par! 9@<!

*ater, on une $<,$&<<, the Barangay Captain of Bel@Air :illage was ad3ised by the 1ffice of

the Mayor that, in accordance with the agreement entered into during the meeting on anuary

;', $ &<<, the Municipal Engineer and the #tation Commander of the Ma6ati Police were

ordered to open for public use upiter #treet from Ma6ati A3enue to Reposo #treet!

Accordingly, he was re4uested to ad3ise the 3illage residents of the necessity of the opening

of the street in the interest of public welfare! E8h! $<, Anne8 E, BA:A Petition!

Then, on une $D, $&<<, the Municipal Engineer of Ma6ati in a letter addressed to BA:A

ad3ised the latter to open for 3ehicular and pedestrian traffic the entire portion of upiter #treet

from Ma6ati A3enue to Reposo #treet E8h! $<, BA:A Petition, par! $%!

2inally, on August $;, $&<<, the municipal officials of Ma6ati concerned allegedly opened,

destroyed and remo3ed the gates constructedJlocated at the corner of Reposo #treet and

upiter #treet as well as the gatesJfences locatedJconstructed at upiter #treet and Ma6ati

A3enue forcibly, and then opened the entire length of upiter #treet to public traffic! E8h! $<,

BA:A Petition, pars! $ and $<!

$$ Before the gates were@remo3ed, there was no par6ing problem or traffic problem inupiter #treet, because upiter #treet was not allowed to be used by the general public

:illa3icencio, T#N, pp! ;%@;>, 1ct! 9D, $&'D! =owe3er, with the opening of odiac #treet

from Estrella #treet to upiter #treet and also the opening to the public of the entire length of

upiter #treet, there was a tremendous increase in the 3olume of traffic passing along upiter

#treet coming from E?#A to Estrella #treet, then to odiac #treet to upiter #treet, and along

the entire length of upiter #treet to its other end at Reposo #treet! :illa3icencio, T#N, pp!

9D@9;, 1ct! 9D, $&'D!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+n the meantime, the purchasers of the commercial lots between upiter #treet and Buendia

A3enue e8tension had started constructing their respecti3e buildings in $&<%@$&<>! They

demolished the portions of the fence or wall standing within the boundary of their lots! Many of

the owners constructed their own fences or walls in lieu of the wall and they employed their

own security guards! T#N, p! '9, 2eb! ;D,$&'$0 T#N, pp! >9@>%0 <;@<%, March ;D,$&'$0 T#N,

pp! >%@>>, uly ;9, $&'$!

$; Then, on anuary ;<, $&<', appellant donated the entire upiter #treet from Metropolitan

A3enue to odiac #treet to BA:A E8h! <@ =owe3er, e3en before $&<', the Ma6ati Police and

the security force of BA:A were already the ones regulating the traffic along upiter #treet

after the gates were opened in $&<<! #ancianco T#N, pp! ;@9D, 1ct! ;,$&'$!

+n 1ctober, $&<&, the fence at the corner of 1rbit and Neptune #treets was opened and

remo3ed BA:A Petition, par! ;;, E8h! $<! The opening of the whole stretch of 1rbit #treet

from !P! Ri"al A3enue up to +melda A3enue and later to upiter #treet was agreed to at the

conference attended by the President of BA:A in the office of the #tation Commander of

Ma6ati, sub7ect to certain conditions, to wit5

That, maintenance of 1rbit #t! up to upiter #t! shall be shouldered by the Municipality ofMa6ati!

That, street lights will be installed and maintenance of the same along 1rbit #t! from !P! Ri"al

A3e! up to upiter #t! shall be underta6en by the Municipality!

That for the security of the residents of #an Miguel :illage and Bel@Air :illage, as a result of

the opening of 1rbit #treet, police outposts shall be constructed by the Municipality of Ma6ati

to be headed by personnel of #tation No! %, in close coordination with the #ecurity uards of

#an Miguel :illage and Bel@Air :illage!) C2! E8h! 9 to Counter@Affida3it, of #tation

Commander, Ruperto Acle p! ;>9, records) 1rder, Ci3il Case No! 9%&%', E8h! $<@c!

$9 Thus, with the opening of the entire length of upiter #treet to public traffic, the different

residential lots located in the northern side of upiter #treet ceased to be used for purely

residential purposes! They became, for all purposes, commercial in character!

$% #ubse4uently, on 1ctober ;&, $&<&, the plaintiffs@appellees ose ?! #angalang and

*utgarda ?! #angalang brought the present action for damages against the defendant@

appellant Ayala Corporation predicated on both breach of contract and on tort or 4uasi@delict A

supplemental complaint was later filed by said appellees see6ing to augment the reliefs

prayed for in the original complaint because of alleged super3ening e3ents which occurred

during the trial of the case! Claiming to be similarly situated as the plaintiffs@appellees, the

spouses 2eli8 C! aston and ?olores R! aston, ose :! Briones and Alicia R! Briones, and

the homeowners association BA:A inter3ened in the case!

$> After trial on the merits, the then Court of 2irst +nstance of Ri"al, Pasig, Metro Manila,

rendered a decision in fa3or of the appellees the dispositi3e portion of which is as follows5

/=ERE21RE, 7udgment is hereby accordingly rendered as follows5

1N P*A+NT+22# C1MP*A+NT5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


?efendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiffs@spouses #angalang the following damages5

$! The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as actual and conse4uential damages0

;! The sum of P;,DDD,DDD!DD as moral damages0

9! The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as e8emplary damages0

%! The sum of P$DD,DDD!DD as attorneys fees0 and

>! The costs of suit!

1N +NTER:EN1R# 2E*+Q and ?1*1RE# A#T1N# C1MP*A+NT5

?efendant is ordered to pay to the spouses 2eli8 and ?olores aston, the following damages5

$ ! The sum of P%DD,DDD!DD as conse4uential damages0

; The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as moral damages0

9 The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as e8emplary damages5

% The sum of P>D,DDD!DD as attorneys fees0 and

> The costs of suit!

1N +NTER:EN1R# 1#E and A*+C+A BR+1NE# C1MP*A+NT5

?efendant is ordered to pay to the spouses ose and Alicia Briones, the following damages5

$ ! The sum of P%DD,DDD!DD as conse4uential damages0

; The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as moral damages0

9 The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as e8emplary damages0

% The sum of P>D,DDD!DD as attorneys fees0 and

> The costs of suit!

1N +NTER:EN1R BA:A# C1MP*A+NT5

?efendant is ordered to pay inter3enor BA:A, the following damages5

$! The sum of P%DD,DDD!DD as conse4uential damages0

;! The sum of P>DD,DDD!DD as e8emplary damages0

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


9! The sum of P>D,DDD!DD as attorneys fees0 and

%! The costs of suit!

The abo3e damages awarded to the plaintiffs and inter3enors shall bear legal interest from the

filing of the complaint!

?efendant is further ordered to restoreJreconstruct the perimeter wall at its original position in

$& from Reposo #treet in the west to odiac #treet in the east, at its own e8pense, within

#+Q M1NT=# from finality of 7udgment!

#1 1R?ERE?!

Record on Appeal, pp! %DD@%D$

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

1n appeal, the Court of Appeals3

rendered a re3ersal, and disposed as follows5

ACC1R?+N*L, finding the decision appealed from as not supported by the facts and the law

on the matter, the same is hereby #ET A#+?E and another one entered dismissing the case

for lac6 of a cause of action! /ithout pronouncement as to costs!

#1 1R?ERE?! 4

++! !R! No! <%9<

This petition was similarly brought by BA:A to enforce the aforesaid restrictions stipulated in the deeds of sale

e8ecuted by the Ayala Corporation! The petitioner originally brought the complaint in the Regional Trial Court of

Ma6ati, @ principally for specific performance, plaintiff now, petitioner alleging that the defendant now,pri3ate respondent Tenorio allowed defendant Tenorios co@pri3ate respondent on"al3es to occupy and

con3ert the house at >D upiter #treet, Bel@Air :illage, Ma6ati, Metro Manila, into a restaurant, without its

6nowledge and consent, and in 3iolation of the deed restrictions which pro3ide that the lot and building

thereon must be used only for residential purposes upon which the prayed for main relief was for the

defendants to permanently refrain from using the premises as commercial and to comply with the terms of

the ?eed Restrictions!) 2 The trial court dismissed the complaint on a procedural ground, i!e!, pendency of

an +dentical action, Ci3il Case No! 9;9%, entitled )Bel@Air :illage Association, +nc! 3! esus Tenorio!) The

Court of Appeals< affirmed, and held, in addition, that upiter #treet )is classified as =igh density

commercial C@9 "one as per Comprehensi3e oning 1rdinance No! '$@D$ for National Capital

Region,) 8 following its own ruling in AC@!R! No! %&, entitled )Bel@Air :illage Association, +nc! 3s! =y@

*and Realty I ?e3elopment Corporation, et al!)

+++! !R! No! <9&%

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

?efendants@spouses Eduardo :! Romualde", r! and Buena Tioseco are the owners of a

house and lot located at $D' upiter #t!, Ma6ati, Metro Manila as e3idenced by Transfer

Certificate of Title No! 99;9&% of the Registry of ?eeds of Ri"al! The fact is undisputed that at

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the time the defendants ac4uired the sub7ect house and lot, se3eral restrictions were already

annotated on the re3erse side of their title0 howe3er, for purposes of this appeal we shall

4uote hereunder only the pertinent ones, to wit5

b, This lotJshall be used only for residential purposes!

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

+:! Term of Restriction

The foregoing restrictions shall remain in force for fifty years from anuary $>, $&><, unless

sooner cancelled in its entirety by two@thirds 3ote of the members in good standing of the Bel@

Air Association! =owe3er, the Association may from time to time, add new ones, amend or

abolish particular restrictions or parts thereof by ma7ority rule!

?uring the early part of $&<&, plaintiff noted that certain reno3ations and constructions were

being made by the defendants on the sub7ect premises, for which reason the defendants were

ad3ised to inform the plaintiff of the 6ind of construction that was going on! Because the

defendants failed to comply with the re4uest of the plaintiff, the latters chief security officer

3isited the sub7ect premises on March ;9, $&<& and found out that the defendants were

putting up a ba6e and coffee shop, which fact was confirmed by defendant Mrs! Romualde"

herself! Thereafter, the plaintiff reminded defendants that they were 3iolating the deed

restriction! ?espite said reminder, the defendants proceeded with the construction of the ba6e

shop! Conse4uently, plaintiff sent defendants a letter dated April 9D, $&<& warning them that if

they will not desist from using the premises in 4uestion for commercial purposes, they will be

sued for 3iolations of the deed restrictions!

?espite the warning, the defendants proceeded with the construction of their ba6e shop! 9

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

The trial court 15 ad7udged in fa3or of BA:A! 1n appeal, the Court of Appeals 11 re3ersed, on the strength of

its holding in AC@!R! No! %& earlier referred to!

BA:A then ele3ated the matter to the Court by a petition for re3iew on certiorari! The Court 1 initially denied

the petition )for lac6 of merit, it appearing that the conclusions of the respondent Court of Appeals that

pri3ate respondents ba6e and coffee shop lies within a commercial "one and that said pri3ate

respondents are released from their obligations to maintain the lot 6nown as $D' upiter #treet for

residential purposes by 3irtue of 1rdinance No! '$ of the Municipality of Ma6ati and Comprehensi3e

oning 1rdinance No! '$@D$ of the Metropolitan Manila Commission, are in accord with law and

7urisprudence,) 13 for which BA:A sought a reconsideration! Pending resolution, the case was referred to

the #econd ?i3ision of this Court, 14 and thereafter, to the Court En Banc en consulta! 1@ Per ourResolution, dated April ;&, $&'', we consolidated this case with !R! Nos! <%9< and ';;'$! 12

+:! !R! No! <'$';!

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The case stemmed from the leasing by defendant ?olores 2illey of her building and lot

situated at No! ;D> Reposo #treet, Bel@Air :illage Ma6ati, Metro Manila to her co@defendant,

the ad3ertising firm ! Romero and Associates, in alleged 3iolation of deed restrictions which

stipulated that 2illeys lot could only be used for residential purposes! Plaintiff sought 7udgment

from the lower court ordering the defendants to )permanently refrain) from using the premises

in 4uestion )as commercial) and to comply with the terms of the deed restrictions!

After the proper proceedings, the court granted the plaintiff the sought for relief with the

additional imposition of e8emplary damages of P>D,DDD!DD and attorneys fees of P$D,DDD!DD!

The trial court ga3e emphasis to the restricti3e clauses contained in 2illeys deed of sale from

the plaintiff, which made the con3ersion of the building into a commercial one a 3iolation!

?efendants now see6 re3iew and re3ersal on three 9 assignments of errors, namely5

+!

T=E TR+A* C1.RT ERRE? +N N1T 2+N?+N T=AT T=E RE.*AT+1N# PR1M.*ATE?

BL T=E M.N+C+PA* A.T=1R+T+E# +N MA-AT+ AN? T=E M+N+#TRL 12 =.MAN

#ETT*EMENT# C=AN+N T=E C=ARACTER 12 T=E AREA# +N H.E#T+1N =A?

REN?ERE? T=E RE#TR+CT+:E EA#EMENT 1N T=E T+T*E 12 T=E APPE**ANT#

:ACATE?!

++!

T=E C1.RT ERRE? +N N1T R.*+N T=AT BECA.#E T=E APPE**EE# =A? A**1/E?

T=E .#E 12 T=E PR1PERTL /+T=+N T=E :+**AE 21R N1N@ RE#+?ENT+A*

P.RP1#E#, +T +# N1/ E#T1PPE? 2R1M EN21RC+N T=E RE#TR+CT+:E

PR1=+B+T+1N# #.BECT MATTER 12 T=+# CA#E!

+++!

T=E C1.RT ERRE? +N N1T 2+N?+N T=AT T=ERE EQ+#TE? A B+*ATERA* C1NTRACT

BET/EEN T=E PART+E# AN? T=AT #+NCE APPE**EE =A? N1T PER21RME? +T#

1B*+AT+1N# .N?ER T=+# ARRANEMENT T=E APPE**ANT +N T.RN /A# .N?ER

N1 1B*+AT+1N T1 ANN1TATE T=E RE#TR+CT+:E PR1=+B+T+1N# 1N T=E BAC- 12

T=E T+T*E!

Appellants anchor their appeal on the proposition that the Bel@Air :illage area, contrary to

plaintiff@ appellees pretension of being a strictly residential "one, is in fact commercial and

characteri"e the restrictions contained in appellant 2illeys deed of sale from the appellee as

completely outmoded, which ha3e lost all rele3ance to the present@day realities in Ma6ati, now

the premier business hub of the nation, where there is a proliferation of numerous commercial

enterprises established through the years, in fact e3en within the heart of so@called

)residential) 3illages! Thus, it may be said that appellants base their position on the ine8orable

march of progress which has rendered at naught the continued efficacy of the restrictions!

Appellant on the other hand, relies on a rigid interpretation of the contractual stipulations

agreed upon with appellant 2illey, in effect arguing that the restrictions are 3alid ad infinitum!

The lower court 4uite properly found that other commercial establishments e8ist in the same

area in fact, on the same street but ignored it 7ust the same and said@

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The fact that defendants were able to pro3e the e8istence of se3eral commercial

establishments inside the 3illage does not e8empt them from liability for 3iolating some of the

restrictions e3idently choosing to accord primacy to contractual stipulation! 1<

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

The Court of Appeals 18 o3erturned the lower court, 19 li6ewise based on AC@!R! No! %&! The

respondent Court obser3ed also that ! Romero I Associates had been gi3en authority to open a

commercial office by the =uman #ettlements Regulatory Commission!

:! !R! No! ';;'$

The facts of this case ha3e been based on stipulation! /e 4uote5

C1ME# N1/, the Parties, assisted by their respecti3e counsel and to this =onorable Court,

respectfully enter into the following stipulations of facts, to wit5

$! The parties admit the personal circumstances of each other as well as their capacities tosue and be sued!

;! The parties admit that plaintiff BA:A for short is the legally constituted homeowners

association in Bel@Air #ubdi3ision, Ma6ati, Metro Manila!

9! The parties admit that defendant :iolets Moncal is the registered owner of a parcel of land

with a residential house constructed thereon situated at No! $D% upiter #treet, Bel@Air :illage,

Ma6ati, Metro Manila0 that as such lot owner, she is a member of the plaintiff association!

%! The parties admit that defendant Ma7al ?e3elopment Corporation Ma7al for short is the

lessee of defendant Moncals house and lot located at No! $D% upiter #treet!

>! The parties admit that a deed restrictions is annotated on the title of defendant Moncal,

which pro3ides, among others, that the lot in 4uestion must be used only for residential

purposes0 that at time Moncal purchased her aforesaid lot in $&>& said deed restrictions was

already annotated in the said title!

! The parties admit that when Moncal leased her sub7ect property to Ma7al, she did not

secure the consent of BA:A to lease the said house and lot to the present lessee!

<! The parties admit that along upiter #treet and on the same side where Moncals property

is located, there are restaurants, clinics placement or employment agencies and other

commercial or business establishments! These establishments, howe3er, were sued by BA:A

in the proper court!

'! The parties admit that at the time Moncal purchased the sub7ect property from the Ma6ati

?e3elopment Corporation, there was a perimeter wall, running along upiter #treet, which wall

was constructed by the subdi3ision owner0 that at that time the gates of the entrances to

upiter #treet were closed to public traffic! +n short, the entire length of upiter which was

inside the perimeter wall was not then open to public traffic

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


&! The parties admit that subse4uent thereto, Ayala tore down the perimeter wall to gi3e way

to the commercial building fronting Buendia A3enue now il ! Puyat A3enue!

$D! The parties admit that on August $;, $&<<, the Mayor of Ma6ati forcibly opened and

remo3ed the street gates constructed on upiter #treet and Reposo #treet, thereby opening

said streets to the public!

$$! The parties admit plaintiffs letters of 1ctober $D, ;9 and 9$, $&'%0 as well as defendants

letters@reply dated 1ctober $< and ;&, $&'%! 5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

The trial court 1 dismissed the petitioners complaint, a dismissal affirmed on appeal, According to the

appellate court, the opening of upiter #treet to human and 3ehicular traffic, and the commerciali"ation of

the Municipality of Ma6ati in general, were circumstances that had made compliance by Moncal with the

aforesaid )deed restrictions) )e8tremely difficult and unreasonable,) 3 a de3elopment that had e8cused

compliance altogether under Article $;< of the Ci3il Code!

:+! The cases before the Court0 the Courts decision!

+n brief, !R! Nos! <%9<, <9&%, <'$';, and ';;'$ are efforts to enforce the )deed restrictions) in 4uestion

against specific residents pri3ate respondents in the petitions of upiter #treet and with respect to !R! No!

<'$';, Reposo #treet! The pri3ate respondents are alleged to ha3e con3erted their residences into commercial

establishments a restaurant in !R! No! <%9<, a ba6ery and coffee shop in !R! No! <9&%, an ad3ertising

firm in !R! No! <'$';0 and a construction company, apparently, in !R! No! ';;'$ in 3iolation of the said

restrictions! 4

Their mother case, ! R! No! <$$& is, on the other hand, a petition to hold the 3endor itself, Ayala Corporation

formerly Ma6ati ?e3elopment Corporation, liable for tearing down the perimeter wall along upiter #treet that

had therefore closed its commercial section from the residences of Bel@Air :illage and ushering in, as aconse4uence, the full )commerciali"ation) of upiter #treet, in 3iolation of the 3ery restrictions it had authored!

As /e indicated, the Court of Appeals dismissed all fi3e appeals on the basis primarily of its ruling in AC@!R!

No! %&, )Bel@Air :illage, +nc! 3! =y@*and Realty ?e3elopment Corporation, et al!,) in which the appellate

court e8plicitly re7ected claims under the same deed restrictions) as a result of 1rdinance No! '$ enacted by

the o3ernment of the Municipality of Ma6ati, as well as Comprehensi3e oning 1rdinance No! '$D$

promulgated by the Metropolitan Manila Commission, which two ordinances allegedly allowed the use of

upiter #treet both for residential and commercial purposes! +t was li6ewise held that these twin measures were

3alid as a legitimate e8ercise of police power!

The Court of Appeals reliance on 1rdinance Nos! '$! and '$D$ is now assailed in these petitions, particularly

the #angalang, et al! petition!

Aside from this fundamental issue, the petitioners li6ewise raise procedural 4uestions! !R! No! <$$&, the

mother case, begins with one!

$! !R! No! <$$&

+n this petition, the following 4uestions are specifically put to the Court5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


May the =onorable +ntermediate Appellate Court re3erse the decision of the trial court on

issues which were neither raised by ALA*A in its Answers either to the Complaint or

#upplemental Complaint nor specifically assigned as one of the alleged errors on appeal @

May the =onorable +ntermediate Appellate Court arbitrarily ignore the decisi3e findings of fact

of the trial court, e3en if uncontradicted andJor documented, and premised mainly on its own

unsupported conclusions totally re3erse the trial courts decision 2

May the =onorable +ntermediate Appellate Court disregard the trial courts documented

findings that respondent Ayala for its own self@interest and commercial purposes contri3ed in

bad faith to do away with the upiter #treet perimeter wall it put up three times which wall was

really intended to separate the residential from the commercial areas and thereby insure the

pri3acy and security of Bel Air :illage pursuant to respondent Ayalas e8press continuing

representation andJor co3enant to do so<

a!

The first 4uestion represents an attac6 on the appellate courts reliance on 1rdinances Nos! '$ and '$@D$, a

matter not supposedly ta6en up at the trial or assigned as an error on appeal! As a rule, the Court of Appeals

then the +ntermediate Appellate Court may determine only such 4uestions as ha3e been properly raised to it,

yet, this is not an infle8ible rule of procedure! +n =ernande" 3! Andal, 8 it was stated that )an unassigned error

closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which the determination of the 4uestion raised by

the error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the

failure to assign it as error!) 9

+n Ba4uiran 3! Court of Appeals, 35 we referred to the ) modern trend of procedure ! ! ! according the courts

broad discretionary power) 31 and in which we allowed consideration of matters )ha3ing some bearing on

the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or the lower court ignored! 3 And in :da! de

a3ellana 3! Court of Appeals, 33 we permitted the consideration of a patent error of the trial court by the

Court of Appeals under #ection <, of Rule >$, of the Rules of Court,34

although such an error had notbeen raised in the brief! But what we note is the fact that the Ayala Corporation did raise the "oning

measures as affirmati3e defenses, first in its answers 3@ and second, in its brief, 32 and submitted at the trial

as e8hibits! 3< There is accordingly no cause for complaint on the part of the petitioners for Ayalas

3iolation of the Rules! But while there was reason for the consideration, on appeal, of the said "oning

ordinances in 4uestion, this Court ne3ertheless finds as inaccurate the Court of Appeals holding that such

measures, had )in effect, made upiter #treet !!! a street which could be used not only for residential

purposes,) 38 and that )+t lost its character as a street for the e8clusi3e benefit of those residing in Bel@Air

:illage completely!) 39

Among other things, there is a recognition under both 1rdinances Nos! '$ and ' $@D$ that upiter #treet lies as

the boundary between Bel@Air :illage and Ayala Corporations commercial section! And since $&><, it had been

considered as a boundary not as a part of either the residential or commercial "ones of Ayala Corporations realestate de3elopment pro7ects! Thus, the Bel@Air :illage Associations articles of incorporation state that Bel@Air

:illage is bounded on the NE!, from Amapola #t!, to de los #antos A3e!, by Estrella #t!, on the #E from E8trella

#t!, to Pedestrian *ane by E! ?e los #antos A3e!, on the #/!, from Pedestrian *ane to Reposo #t!, by upiter

#treet

! ! ! ! 45 =ence, it cannot be said to ha3e been )for the e8clusi3e benefit) of Bel@Air :illage residents!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


/e come to the perimeter wall then standing on the commercial side of upiter #treet the destruction of which

opened the street to the public! The petitioners contend that the opening of the thoroughfare had opened, in

turn, the floodgates to the commerciali"ation of Bel@Air :illage! The wall, so they allege, was designed precisely

to protect the peace and pri3acy of Bel@Air :illage residents from the din and uproar of mercantile pursuits, and

that the Ayala Corporation had committed itself to maintain it! +t was the opinion of the Court of Appeals, as we

said, that Ayalas liability therefor, if one e8isted, had been o3erta6en by the passage of 1rdinances Nos! '$

and ';@D$, opening upiter #treet to commerce!

+t is our ruling, we reiterate, that upiter #treet lies as a mere boundary, a fact ac6nowledged by the authorities

of Ma6ati and the National o3ernment and, as a scrutiny of the records themsel3es re3eals, by the petitioners

themsel3es, as the articles of incorporation of Bel@Air :illage Association itself would confirm! As a

conse4uence, upiter #treet was intended for the use by both @the commercial and residential bloc6s! +t was

not originally constructed, therefore, for the e8clusi3e use of either bloc6, least of all the residents of Bel@Air

:illage, but, we repeat, in fa3or of both, as distinguished from the general public!

/hen the wall was erected in $& and rebuilt twice, in $&<D and $&<;, it was not for the purpose of physically

separating the two bloc6s! According to Ayala Corporation, it was put up to enable the Bel@Air :illage

Association )better control of the security in the area, 41 and as the Ayala Corporations )show of goodwill

) 4 a 3iew we find acceptable in the premises! 2or it cannot be denied that at that time, the commercialarea was 3acant, )open for sic animals and people to ha3e access to Bel@Air :illage!) 43 There was

hence a necessity for a wall!

+n any case, we find the petitioners theory, that maintaining the wall was a matter of a contractual obligation on

the part of Ayala, to be pure con7ecture! The records do not establish the e8istence of such a purported

commitment! 2or one, the subdi3ision plans submitted did not mention anything about it! 2or another, there is

nothing in the )deed restrictions) that would point to any co3enant regarding the construction of a wall! There is

no representation or promise whatsoe3er therein to that effect!

/ith the construction of the commercial buildings in $&<%, the reason for which the wall was built@ to secure

Bel@Air :illage from interlopers had naturally ceased to e8ist! The buildings themsel3es had pro3ided

formidable curtains of security for the residents! +t should be noted that the commercial lot buyers themsel3es

were forced to demolish parts of the wall to gain access to upiter #treet, which they had after all e4ual right to

use!

+n fine, we cannot hold the Ayala Corporation liable for damages for a commitment it did not ma6e, much less

for alleged resort to machinations in e3ading it! The records, on the contrary, will show that the Bel@Air :illage

Association had been informed, at the 3ery outset, about the impending use of upiter #treet by commercial lot

buyers! /e 4uote5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

$! E8h! + of appellee, the memorandum of Mr! Carmelo Caluag, President of BA:A, dated May

$D, $&<;, informing the BA:A Board of o3ernors and Barrio Council members about the

future use of upiter #treet by the lot owners fronting Buendia A3enue! The use of upiter

#treet by the owners of the commercial lots would necessarily re4uire the demolition of the

wall along the commercial bloc6 ad7oining upiter #treet!

;! E8h! of appellee, the minutes of the 7oint meeting of BA:A Board of o3ernors and the

Bel@Air Barrio Council where the matter that )Buendia lot owners will ha3e e4ual rights to use

upiter #treet,) and that Ayalas )plans about the sale of lots and use of upiter #treet) were

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


precisely ta6en up! This confirms that from the start BA:A was informed that the commercial

lot owners will use upiter #treet and that necessarily the wall along upiter #treet would be

demolished!

9! E8h! $D, the letter of Mr! ?emetrio Copuyoc to the President of BA:A, dated May $, $&<;,

e8pressly stating that 3ehicular entrance and e8it to the commercial lots would be allowed

along upiter and side streets!

%! E8hs! ;<, ;<@A, ;<@B, the letter of Atty! #al3ador ! *orayes dated une 9D, $&<;, with

enclosed copy of proposed restriction for the commercial lots to BA:A! =e proposed

restriction again e8pressly stated that ):ehicular entrances and e8its are allowed thru upiter

and any side streets!)

>! E8h! * of appellee, the minutes of the meeting of the members of BA:A, dated August ;,

$&<;, where it is stated )Recently, Ayala Corporation informed the Board that the lots fronting

Buendia A3enue will soon be offered for sale, and that future lot owners will be gi3en e4ual

rights to use upiter #treet as well as members of the Association!)

! E8h! ;>, the letter of Atty! *orayes dated #eptember ;>, $&<;, informing BA:A of the

widening of upiter #treet by 9!> meters to impro3e traffic flow in said street to benefit both the

residents of Bel@Air and the future owners of the commercial lots! 44

The petitioners cannot successfully rely on the alleged promise by ?emetrio Copuyoc, Ayalas manager, to

build a )fence along upiter with gate for entrance andJor e8it 4@ as e3idence of Ayalas alleged continuing

obligation to maintain a wall between the residential and commercial sections! +t should be obser3ed that

the fence referred to included a )gate for entrance and or e8it) which would ha3e defeated the purpose of

a wall, in the sense the petitioners would put in one, that is to say, an impenetrable barrier! But as Ayala

would point out subse4uently, the proposed fence was not constructed because it had become

unnecessary when the commercial lot owners commenced constructions thereon!

Be that as it may, the Court cannot 3isuali"e any purported obligation by Ayala Corporation to 6eep the wall on

the strength of this supposed promise alone! +f truly Ayala promised anything assuming that Capuyoc was

authori"ed to bind the corporation with a promise it would ha3e been with respect to the fence! +t would not

ha3e established the pre@e8isting obligation alleged with respect to the wall!

1bligations arise, among other things, from contract! 42 +f Ayala, then, were bound by an obligation, it would

ha3e been pursuant to a contract! A contract, howe3er, is characteri"ed by a )meeting of minds between

two persons ! 4< As a consensual relation, it must be shown to e8ist as a fact, clearly and con3incingly! But

it cannot be inferred from a mishmash of circumstances alone disclosing some 6ind of an

)understanding,) when especially, those disparate circumstances are not themsel3es incompatible with

contentions that no accord had e8isted or had been reached! 48

The petitioners cannot simply assume that the wall was there for the purpose with which they now gi3e it, by

the bare coincidence that it had di3ided the residential bloc6 from the commercial section of Bel@Air! The burden

of proof rests with them to show that it had indeed been built precisely for that ob7ecti3e, a proof that must

satisfy the re4uirements of our rules of e3idence! +t cannot be made to stand on the strength of plain

inferences!

b!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


This li6ewise answers the petitioners second 4uery, whether or not the Court of Appeals had )arbitrarily

ignored the decisi3e findings of the trial court!) 49 i!e!, findings pointing to alleged acts performed by the

Ayala Corporation pro3ing its commitment to maintain the wall abo3esaid! #pecifically, the petitioners

refer to, among other things5 $ Ayalas alleged announcement to Bel@ Air :illage Association members

that )the perimeter wall along upiter #treet will not be demolished,) @5 ; Ayalas alleged commitment

)during the pendency of the case in the trial court) to restore the wall0 9 alleged assurances by Copuyoc

that the wall will not be remo3ed0 % alleged contri3ances by the corporation to ma6e the association

admit as members the commercial lot buyers which pro3ided them e4ual access to upiter #treet0 and >

Ayalas donation to the association of upiter #treet for )pri3ate use) of Bel@Air residents! @1

'; $&D9, where it was held that )whether the plaintiffs ser3ices were solicited or whether they were offered to

the defendant for his assistance, inasmuch as these ser3ices were accepted and made use of by the latter, we

must consider that there was a tacit and mutual consent as to the rendition of ser3ices!) At '! +n that case,

the defendant had enormously benefitted from the ser3ices that entitled the plaintiff to compensation on the

theory that no one may un7ustly enrich himself at the e8pense of another #olutio indebiti The facts of this case

differ!

As we stated, the Ayala Corporations alleged conduct prior to or during the proceedings below are not

necessarily at war with claims that no commitment had been in fact made!

/ith respect to Ayalas alleged announcement before the association, the Court does not agree that Ayala had

categorically assumed as an obligation to maintain the wall )perpetually,) i!e!, until the year ;DD< the e8piration

date under the )deed restrictions!) There is nothing in its statement that would bare any commitment! +n

connection with the conference between the parties )during the pendency) of the trial, it is to be noted that the

Ayala Corporation denies ha3ing warranted the restoration of the said wall therein! /hat, on the other hand,

appears in the records is the fact that Ayala did ma6e that promise, but pro3ided that the Mayor allowed it! +t

turned out, howe3er, that the Mayor bal6ed at the +dea! @ But assuming that Ayala did promise to rebuild the

wall in that conference, it does not seem to us that it did conse4uently promise to maintain it in

perpetuity!

+t is unfair to say, as the trial court did, that the Ayala had )contri3ed to ma6e future commercial lot owners

special members of BA:A and thereby ac4uire e4ual right with the regular members thereof to use upiter

#treet @3since, as we stated, the commercial lot buyers ha3e the right, in any e3ent, to ma6e use of upiter

#treet, whether or not they are members of the association! +t is not their memberships that gi3e them the

right to use it! They share that right with Bel@Air residents from the outset!

The ob7ecti3e of ma6ing the commercial lot owners special members of the Bel@Air :illage Association was not

to accord them e4ual access to upiter #treet and inferentially, to gi3e them the right to 6noc6 down the

perimeter wall! +t was, rather, to regulate the use of the street owing precisely to the )planned) nature of Ayalas

de3elopment pro7ect, and real estate de3elopment in general, and this could best be done by placing the

commercial lot owners under the associations 7urisdiction!

Moreo3er, Ayalas o3ertures with the association concerning the membership of commercial lot buyers therein

ha3e been shown to be neither perfidious nor unethical nor de3ious paraphrasing the lower court! /e 4uote

anew5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

< 1n une 9D, $&<;, appellant informed BA:A that in a few months it shall subdi3ide and sell

the commercial lots bordering the north side of Buendia A3enue E8tension from Reposo

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#treet up to odiac #treet! Appellant also informed BA:A that it had ta6en all precautions and

will impose upon the commercial lot owners deed restrictions which will harmoni"e and blend

with the de3elopment and welfare of Bel@Air :illage! Appellant further applied for special

membership in BA:A of the commercial lot owners! A copy of the deed restrictions for the

commercial lots was also enclosed! The proposed deed restrictions shall include the $& meter

set bac6 of buildings from upiter #treet, the re4uirement for par6ing space within the lot of

one $ par6ing slot for e3ery se3enty fi3e <> meters of office space in the building and thelimitation of 3ehicular traffic along Buendia to entrance only, but allowing both 3ehicular

entrance and 3ehicular e8it through upiter #treet and any side street!

+n its letter of uly $D, $&<;, BA:A ac6nowledged the abo3e letter of appellant and informed the latter that the

application for special membership of the commercial lot owners in BA:A would be submitted to BA:As board

of go3ernors for decision!

' 1n #eptember ;>,$&<;, appellant notified BA:A that, after a careful study, it was finally

decided that the height limitation of buildings on the commercial lots shall be increased from

$;!> meters to $> meters! Appellant further informed BA:A that upiter #treet shall be

widened by 9!> meters to impro3e traffic flow in said street! BA:A did not reply to said letter,

but on anuary ;;, $&<9, BA:A wrote a letter to the appellant informing the latter that the Association had assessed the appellant, as special member of the association, the amount of

P%D,<&>!DD based on '$,>&D s4uare meters at P!>D per s4uare meter representing the

membership dues of the commercial lot owners for the year $&<9, and re4uested the

appellant to remit the amount which its board of go3ernors had already included in its current

budget! +n reply, appellant on anuary 9$, $&<9 informed BA:A that due to the widening of

upiter #treet, the area of the lots which were accepted by the Association as members was

reduced to <,<; s4uare meters! Thus, the corresponding due at P!>D per s4uare meter

should be reduced to P9',99!DD! This amount, therefore, was remitted by the appellant to

BA:A! #ince then, the latter has been collecting membership dues from the owners of the

commercial lots as special members of the Association! As a matter of fact, the dues were

increased se3eral times! +n $&'D, the commercial lot owners were already being charged dues

at the rate of P9!DD per s4uare meter! ?omingo, T#N, p! 9, March $&, $&'D! At this rate, thetotal membership dues of the commercial lot owners amount to P;9D,$<'!DD annually based

on the total area of <,<; s4uare meters of the commercial lots! @4

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

The alleged underta6ing, finally, by Ayala in the deed of donation o3er upiter #treet to lea3e upiter #treet for

the pri3ate use of Bel@Air residents is belied by the 3ery pro3isions of the deed! /e 4uote5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

+:! That the offer made by the ?1N1R had been accepted by the ?1NEE sub7ect to the

condition that the property will be used as a street for the use of the members of the ?1NEE,their families, personnel, guests, domestic help and, under certain reasonable conditions and

restrictions, by the general public, and in the e3ent that said lots or parts thereof cease to be

used as such, ownership thereof shall automatically re3ert to the ?1N1R! The ?1NEE shall

always ha3e Reposo #treet, Ma6ati A3enue, and Paseo de Ro8as open for the use of the

general public! +t is also understood that the ?1N1R shall continue the maintenance of the

street at its e8pense for a period of three years from date hereof!) ?eed of ?onation, p! ,

E8h! < @@

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

The donation, on the contrary, ga3e the general public e4ual right to it!

The Court cannot then say, accepting the 3eracity of the petitioners facts) enumerated abo3e, that the Ayala

Corporation may be held liable for specific performance of a demandable obligation, let alone damages!

The Court adds that Ayala can hardly be held responsible for the alleged deterioration of )li3ing and

en3ironmental conditions) @2 of the Bel@Air area, as a conse4uence of )Ayalas authori"ed demolition of the

upiter perimeter wall in $&<%@$&<>! ) @< /e agree with Ayala that until $&<, )there was peace and 4uiet)

at upiter #treet, as the petitioners #angalang, aston, and Briones complaints admit! =ence, the

degeneration of peace and order in Bel@Air cannot be ascribed to the destruction of the wall in $&<% and

$&<>!

/hat Ayala submits as the real cause was the opening of upiter #treet to 3ehicular traffic in $&<<!, @8 But this

was upon orders of the Mayor, and for which the homeowners association had precisely filed suit Ci3il

Case No! 9%&&' @9 to contest the act of the Mayor!

c!

This li6ewise disposes of the third 4uestion presented! The petitioners reliance on Ayalas alleged conduct

pro3ing its alleged commitment, so we ha3e ruled, is not well@ta6en! Ayalas alleged acts do not, by

themsel3es, reflect a commitment to maintain the wall in dispute! +t cannot be therefore said that the Court of

Appeals )arbitrarily ignored) 25 the lower courts findings! Precisely, it is the duty of the appellate court to

re3iew the findings of the trial 7udge, be they of fact or law! 21 +t is not bound by the conclusions of the

7udge, for which reason it ma6es its own findings and arri3es at its own conclusions! .nless a gra3e

abuse of discretion may be imputed to it, it may accept or re7ect the lower tribunals determinations and

rely solely on the records!

Accordingly, the Court affirms the Court of Appeals holding that the Ayala Corporation, in its dealings with the

petitioners, the Bel@Air :illage Association in particular, had )acted with 7ustice, ga3e the appellees petitioners

their due and obser3ed honesty and good faith!) 2 )Therefore, under both Articles $& and ;$ of the Ci3il

Code, the appellant Ayala cannot be held liable for damages!) 23

;! !R! Nos! <%9<, <9&%, <'$';, I ';;'$

1ur decision also resol3es, 4uite anticlimactically, these companion cases! But we do so for 3arious other

reasons! +n the #angalang case, we absol3e the Ayala Corporation primarily owing to our finding that it is not

liable for the opening of upiter #treet to the general public! +nsofar as these petitions are concerned, we

li6ewise e8culpate the pri3ate respondents, not only because of the fact that upiter #treet is not co3ered by the

restricti3e easements based on the )deed restrictions) but chiefly because the National o3ernment itself,

through the Metro Manila Commission MMC, had reclassified upiter #treet into high density commercial C@

9 "one, 24 pursuant to its 1rdinance No! '$@D$! =ence, the petitioners ha3e no cause of action on the

strength alone of the said )deed restrictions!

+n 3iew thereof, we find no need in resol3ing the 4uestions raised as to procedure, since this disposition is

sufficient to resol3e these cases!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+t is not that we are saying that restricti3e easements, especially the easements herein in 4uestion, are in3alid

or ineffecti3e! As far as the Bel@Air subdi3ision itself is concerned, certainly, they are 3alid and enforceable! But

they are, li6e all contracts, sub7ect to the o3erriding demands, needs, and interests of the greater number as

the #tate may determine in the legitimate e8ercise of police power! 1ur 7urisdiction guarantees sanctity of

contract and is said to be the )law between the contracting parties, 2@ but while it is so, it cannot contra3ene

law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy! 22 Abo3e all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent to

police power, designed precisely to promote health, safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at thee8pense of contractual rights, whene3er necessary! +n 1rtigas I Co!, *imited Partnership 3! 2eati Ban6

and Trust Co!, 2< we are told5

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

;! /ith regard to the contention that said resolution cannot nullify the contractual obligations

assumed by the defendant@appellee referring to the restrictions incorporated in the deeds of

sale and later in the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title issued to defendant@appellee

it should be stressed, that while non@impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed,

the rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate e8ercise of police

power, i!e!, )the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,

education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people! +n3ariably described as

)the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers) and )in a sense, the greatest and most

powerful attribute of go3ernment,) the e8ercise of the power may be 7udicially in4uired into

and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, un7ust or unreasonable, there ha3ing been a

denial of due process or a 3iolation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee! As this

Court held through ustice ose P! Bengson in Philippine *ong ?istance Company 3s! City of

?a3ao, et al! police power is elastic and must be responsi3e to 3arious social conditions0 it is

not confined within narrow circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions0 it must

follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life! /e were e3en more emphatic in :da! de

enuino 3s! The Court of agrarian Relations, et al!, when /e declared5 )/e do not see why

public welfare when clashing with the indi3idual right to property should not be made to pre3ail

through the states e8ercise of its police power!)

Resolution No! ;<, $&D declaring the western part of =igh way >%, now E! de los #antos

A3enue E?#A, for short from #haw Boule3ard to the Pasig Ri3er as an industrial and

commercial "one, was ob3iously passed by the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Ri"al in

the e8ercise of police power to safeguard or promote the health, safety, peace, good order

and general welfare of the people in the locality! udicial notice may be ta6en of the conditions

pre3ailing in the area, especially where *ots Nos! > and are located! The lots themsel3es not

only front the highway0 industrial and commercial comple8es ha3e flourished about the place!

E?#A, a main traffic artery which runs through se3eral cities and municipalities in the Metro

Manila area, supports an endless stream of traffic and the resulting acti3ity, noise and

pollution are hardly conduci3e to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in its route!

=a3ing been e8pressly granted the power to adopt "oning and subdi3ision ordinances or

regulations, the municipality of Mandaluyong, through its Municipal Council, was reasonably, if not perfectly, 7ustified under the circumstances, in passing the sub7ect resolution! 28

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

.ndoubtedly, the MMC 1rdinance represents a legitimate e8ercise of police power! The petitioners ha3e not

shown why we should hold otherwise other than for the supposed )non@impairment) guaranty of the

Constitution, which, as we ha3e declared, is secondary to the more compelling interests of general welfare! The

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


1rdinance has not been shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to warrant the re3ersal of the

7udgments so appealed! +n that connection, we find no re3ersible error to ha3e been committed by the Court of

Appeals!

/=ERE21RE, premises considered, these petitions are ?EN+E? No pronouncement as to costs!

+T +# #1 1R?ERE?!

Fernan, (&.*.$, Melencio>errera, <utierrez, *r., &ruz, <anca"co, idin, &ortes, <ri?oAquino, Medialdea and

Regalado, **., concur.

ar'asa, *., on lea'e.

Paras, *., -oo: no part@

Feliciano, *., -oo: no part@

Padilla, *., -oo: no part@


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

!&C& "o& 88;% %ne 19, 19<4

#!UDE"CIO S& UR/I"! an) >ED!STO /& #ESMU"DO complainants,

3s!

%UD#E M!BIMO !& M!CERE", respondent!

R E S O $ U T I O "

TEE!":EE, J.: p

After the Courts resolution of 2ebruary , $&<% dismissing the complaint )for failure to ma6e out a pri%a

faciecase without pre7udice to respondents filing a separate administrati3e complaint for unwarranted

harassment against complainant Atty! :edasto B! esmundo as sought in respondents comment,) there were

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


belatedly reported to the Court a the 3erified oint motion for suspension andJor to declare respondent and

Atty! Marcial Esguerra in contempt of court) filed by complainant audencio #! .rbina on ?ecember ;<, $&<9

for allegedly ha3ing made through said complainants former counsel, Atty! Marcial Esguerra, gra3e threats

against complainants life if he complainant did not withdraw his complaints against respondent and b the $st

+ndorsement dated ?ecember >, $&<9 and recei3ed on anuary &, $&<% of Assistant E8ecuti3e #ecretary Ronaldo B! amora of the 1ffice of

the President referring for comment complainant esmundos letter of 1ctober 9$, $&<9 submitting his )ob7ection to re@appointment) of

respondent 7udge, both of which were referred to respondent for comment as per the Courts resolution of 2ebruary $&, $&<%!

+n respondents comment of March ', $&<%, he submitted the ten@page dismissal dated March >, $&<% by the

acting pro3incial fiscal of *aguna of complainant .rbinas criminal complaint against respondent for )-nowingly

Rendering an .n7ust udgment) wherein the fiscal correctl" ruled that )The decision of the respondent that is

claimed to be un7ust is now pending appeal! The 4uestion therefore of whether or not it is un7ust is sub@7udice! +t

would not be proper for this 1ffice at this time to determine whether or not the said decision is un7ust,) and that

assuming that he as a mere fiscal and a non@7udicial officer could pass in 7udgment upon the 7ustness or

un7ustness of respondents decision complained of as un7ust by the losing party who has appealed the same to

a higher court, there was no basis for concluding that the respondent 7udge 6new that his 7udgment was un7ust!

Not only does he belie3e that his 7udgment is 7ust and correct0 his 3iew that a probate court cannot decide

4uestions in3ol3ing title or ownership of real properties is well supported by the long line of decisions of the

#upreme Court cited in his comment!) at pages &@$D

Respondent con3incingly denies as pointless the alleged threat thru Atty! Esguerra against complainant

.rbinas life to compel him to withdraw his charges in this administrati3e complaint since there would remain

another complainant in the person of Atty! esmundo!

Respondent did admit that in a chance meeting in the courthouse with Atty! Esguerra, he re4uested the latter

should meet his former client .rbina who alone filed the criminal complaint for )6nowingly rendering an un7ust

7udgment) to inform .rbina that )respondent bears no ill will against him and if he feels aggrie3ed by the

decision why not limit his action to an ordinary appeal to the higher courts as he has already done!)

Respondent categorically denied ha3ing made any threats whatsoe3er against .rbina, directly or through

another, confident as he was although harassed that the criminal complaint would ultimately be, as in fact it

was, dismissed by the fiscal for being without basis in law and in fact!

Respondent further submitted the corroborati3e affida3it of Atty! Esguerra, stating that he merely telephoned

.rbina to suggest that the pending appeal rather than the criminal complaint for allegedly 6nowingly rendering

an un7ust 7udgment was his proper recourse against respondents ad3erse decision, and un4ualifiedly stating

that he ne3er made any threats nor went to .rbinas house and that )The statements + allegedly made as

stated in the affida3it of audencio .rbina did not come from my lips!)

/hile there are thus conflicting factual a3erments on the part of complainant and respondent, the Court is

satisfied from the factual bac6ground of the administrati3e complaint which it has already dismissed pre3iously

for not ma6ing out a pri%a facie case and from the baselessness of the criminal complaint for allegedly

)6nowingly rendering an un7ust 7udgment) which has also been correctly dismissed by the fiscal, that the

complainants charge of threats cannot be sustained, resting as it does flimsily on complainants bare assertion

as against the respondents categorical denial supported by Atty! Esguerras affida3it! +n the light of ordinary

human conduct and e8perience, it is difficult to gi3e any inherent credence to the complaint for it would ha3e

been e8tremely foolhardy and pointless for respondent to ha3e as6ed Atty! Esguerra to ma6e the alleged

threats against complainant! The Court finds respondents comment to be satisfactory and will not sub7ect

respondent to further needless harassment and distraction if it were to gi3e due course to the complaint@motion,

as insisted by complainant in his reply to comment!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+t is appropriate to en7oin complainants and members of the bar who file administrati3e complaints against

7udges of inferior courts that they should do so after proper circumspection and without the use of disrespectful

language and offensi3e personalities, so as not to unduly burden the Court in the discharge of its function of

administrati3e super3ision o3er inferior court 7udges and court personnel! The Court has meted the

corresponding disciplinary measures against erring 7udges, including dismissal and suspension where

warranted, and welcomes the honest efforts of the bar to assist it in the tas6! But lawyers should also bear in

mind that they owe fidelity to the courts as well as to their clients and that the filing on behalf of disgruntledlitigants of unfounded or fri3olous charges against inferior court 7udges and the use of offensi3e and

intemperate language as a means of harassing 7udges whose decisions ha3e not been to their li6ing

irrespecti3e of the law and 7urisprudence on the matter will sub7ect them to appropriate disciplinary action as

officers of the Court!

The Court has consistently held that 7udges will not be held administrati3ely liable for mere errors of 7udgment

in their rulings or decisions absent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their part! As stressed by the now

Chief ustice in 1izon 's. de or=a, 8D S&RA 79, C5 , )To hold a 7udge administrati3ely accountable for e3ery

erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and

would ma6e his position unbearable!) Much less can a 7udge be so held accountable where to all indications,

as in this case, his 3erdict complained of and now pending re3iew on appeal is far from erroneous!

ACC1R?+N*L, complainant .rbinas )7oint motion) is denied!

The cler6 of court is directed to furnish Assistant E8ecuti3e #ecretary Ronaldo B! amora of the 1ffice of the

President with a copy of this resolution as well as of the pre3ious resolution of 2ebruary , $&<%, by way of

reply to his $st indorsement dated ?ecember >, $&<9!

#1 1R?ERE?!

Ma:alintal &.*., Jaldi'ar, &astro, Fernando, arredo, Ma:asiar, Antonio, Esguerra, Fernandez, Mu?oz Pal%a

and Aquino, **., concur


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

#&R& "o& $;<2@4 ebrar= 18, 19<5

I" TE M!TTER O PROCEEDI"#S OR DISCIP$I"!R !CTIO" !#!I"ST !TT& >ICE"TE R!U$!$M!CE" In $;<2@4, !"TO"IO & C!$ERO,

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


3s!

>IR#I"I! & !PTI"C!&

R E # 1 * . T + 1 N

C!STRO, J.:

Before us is Atty! :icente Raul Almacens )Petition to #urrender *awyers Certificate of Title,) filed on

#eptember ;>, $&<, in protest against what he therein asserts is )a great in7ustice committed against his client

by this #upreme Court!) =e indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal )peopled by men who are

calloused to our pleas for 7ustice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit

culpable 3iolations of the Constitution with impunity!) =is clients he continues, who was deeply aggrie3ed by

this Courts )un7ust 7udgment,) has become )one of the sacrificial 3ictims before the altar of hypocrisy!) +n the

same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of 7ustice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying )that

7ustice as administered by the present members of the #upreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and

dumb!) =e then 3ows to argue the cause of his client )in the peoples forum,) so that )the people may 6now of

the silent in7ustices committed by this Court,) and that )whate3er mista6es, wrongs and in7ustices that were

committed must ne3er be repeated!) =e ends his petition with a prayer that

!!! a resolution issue ordering the Cler6 of Court to recei3e the certificate of the undersigned

attorney and counsellor@at@law +N TR.#T with reser3ation that at any time in the future and in

the e3ent we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrie3e our title to assume the practice

of the noblest profession!

=e reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the aforementioned petition! Thus, on #eptember ;,

$&<, the Manila -i%es published statements attributed to him, as follows5

:icente Raul Almacen, in an unprecedented petition, said he did it to e8pose the

tribunals)unconstitutional and obnoxious) practice of arbitrarily denying petitions or appeals

without any reason!

Because of the tribunals )shortcut =ustice,) Almacen deplored, his client was condemned to

pay P$;D,DDD, without 6nowing why he lost the case!

888 888 888

There is no use continuing his law practice, Almacen said in this petition, )!here our Supre%e

&ourt is co%posed of %en !ho are calloused to our pleas for =ustice, !ho ignore !ithout

reason their o!n applicable decisions and co%%it culpable 'iolations of the &onstitution !ithi%punit" !

888 888 888

=e e8pressed the hope that by di3esting himself of his title by which he earns his li3ing, the

present members of the #upreme Court )!ill beco%e responsi'e to all cases brought to its

attention !ithout discri%ination, and !ill purge itself of those unconstitutional and obnoxious

)lac: of %erit) or )denied resolutions! Emphasis supplied

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! Almacens statement that

!!! our own #upreme Court is composed of men who are calloused to our pleas of sic 7ustice,

who ignore their own applicable decisions and commit culpable 3iolations of the Constitution

with impunity

was 4uoted by columnist :icente Albano Pacis in the issue of the Manila &hronicle of #eptember ;', $&<! +n

connection therewith, Pacis commented that Atty! Almacen had )accused the high tribunal of offenses so

serious that the Court must clear itself,) and that )his charge is one of the constitutional bases for

impeachment!)

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a ci3il case entitled 3irginia K. Kaptincha" 's. Antonio >.

&alero,1 in which Atty! Almacen was counsel for the defendant! The trial court, after due hearing, rendered

7udgment against his client! 1n une $>, $& Atty! Almacen recei3ed a copy of the decision! Twenty days

later, or on uly >, $&, he mo3ed for its reconsideration! =e ser3ed on the ad3erse counsel a copy of

the motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion! Meanwhile, on

uly $', $&, the plaintiff mo3ed for e8ecution of the 7udgment! 2or )lac6 of proof of ser3ice,) the trial

court denied both motions! To pro3e that he did ser3e on the ad3erse party a copy of his first motion for

reconsideration, Atty! Almacen filed on August $<, $& a second motion for reconsideration to which he

attached the re4uired registry return card! This second motion for reconsideration, howe3er, was ordered

withdrawn by the trial court on August 9D, $&, upon 3erbal motion of Atty! Almacen himself, who, earlier,

that is, on August ;;, $&, had already perfected the appeal! Because the plaintiff interposed no

ob7ection to the record on appeal and appeal bond, the trial court ele3ated the case to the Court of

Appeals!

But the Court of Appeals, on the authority of this Courts decision in Manila Suret" G Fidelit" &o., 4nc. 's. atu

&onstruction G &o., *@$9, une ;%, $&>, dismissed the appeal, in the following words5

.pon consideration of the motion dated March ;<, $&<, filed by plaintiff@appellee praying that

the appeal be dismissed, and of the opposition thereto filed by defendant@appellant0 the CourtRE#1*:E? T1 ?+#M+##, as it hereby dismisses, the appeal, for the reason that the motion

for reconsideration dated uly >, $& pp! &D@$$9, printed record on appeal does not contain

a notice of time and place of hearing thereof and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper

Manila #urety I 2idelity Co!, +nc! 3s! Batu Construction I Co!, !R! No! *@$9, une ;%,

$&>, which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and, conse4uently, the

appeal was perfected out of time!

Atty! Almacen mo3ed to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila Suret" G Fidelit" &o! is not decisi3e! At

the same time he filed a pleading entitled )*atest decision of the #upreme Court in #upport of Motion for

Reconsideration,) citing Republic of the Philippines 's. <regorio A. 3enturanza, *@;D%$<, decided by this Court

on May 9D, $&, as the applicable case! Again, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration,

thus5

Before this Court for resolution are the motion dated May &, $&< and the supplement thereto

of the same date filed by defendant@ appellant, praying for reconsideration of the resolution of

May ', $&<, dismissing the appeal!

Appellant contends that there are some important distinctions between this case and that

of Manila Suret" and Fidelit" &o., 4nc. 's. atu &onstruction G &o., !R! No! *@ $9, une

;%, $&>, relied upon by this Court in its resolution of May ', $&<! Appellant further states

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


that in the latest case,Republic 's. 3enturanza, *@;D%$<, May 9D, $&, decided by the

#upreme Court concerning the 4uestion raised by appellants motion, the ruling is contrary to

the doctrine laid down in the Manila #urety I 2idelity Co!, +nc! case!

There is no substantial distinction between this case and that of Manila #urety I 2idelity Co!

+n the case of Republic 's. 3enturanza, the resolution denying the motion to dismiss the

appeal, based on grounds similar to those raised herein was issued on No3ember ;, $&;,

which was much earlier than the date of promulgation of the decision in the Manila #urety

Case, which was une ;%, $&>! 2urther, the resolution in the :enturan"a case was

interlocutory and the #upreme Court issued it )without pre7udice to appellees restoring the

point in the brief!) +n the main decision in said case Rep! 3s! :enturan"a the #upreme Court

passed upon the issue sub silencio presumably because of its prior decisions contrary to the

resolution of No3ember ;, $&;, one of which is that in the Manila #urety and 2idelity case!

Therefore Republic 's. 3enturanza is no authority on the matter in issue!

Atty! Almacen then appealed to this Court by certiorari! /e refused to ta6e the case, and by minute resolution

denied the appeal! ?enied shortly thereafter was his motion for reconsideration as well as his petition for lea3e

to file a second motion for reconsideration and for e8tension of time! Entry of 7udgment was made on#eptember ', $&<! =ence, the second motion for reconsideration filed by him after the #aid date was ordered

e8punged from the records!

+t was at this 7uncture that Atty! Almacen ga3e 3ent to his disappointment by filing his )Petition to #urrender

*awyers Certificate of Title,) already ad3erted to ( a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to end with

the insolent contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory remar6s hereinbefore reproduced, against this

Court as well as its indi3idual members, a beha3ior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional!

Nonetheless we decided by resolution dated #eptember ;', $&< to withhold action on his petition until he shall

ha3e actually surrendered his certificate! Patiently, we waited for him to ma6e good his proffer! No word came

from him! #o he was reminded to turn o3er his certificate, which he had earlier 3ociferously offered to

surrender, so that this Court could act on his petition! To said reminder he manifested )that he has no pending

petition in connection with Case !R! No! *@;<>%, &alero 's. Kaptincha" , said case is now final and

e8ecutory0) that this Courts #eptember ;', $&< resolution did not re4uire him to do either a positi3e or

negati3e act0 and that since his offer was not accepted, he )chose to pursue the negati3e act!)

+n the e8ercise of its inherent power to discipline a member of the bar for contumely and gross misconduct, this

Court on No3ember $<, $&< resol3ed to re4uire Atty! Almacen to show cause )why no disciplinary action

should be ta6en against him!) ?enying the charges contained in the No3ember $< resolution, he as6ed for

permission )to gi3e reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be ta6en against him !!! in an open

and public hearing!) This Court resol3ed on ?ecember < )to re4uire Atty! Almacen to state, within fi3e days

from notice hereof, his reasons for such re4uest, otherwise, oral argument shall be deemed wai3ed and

incident submitted for decision!) To this resolution he manifested that since this Court is )the complainant,

prosecutor and udge,) he preferred to be heard and to answer 4uestions )in person and in an open and publichearing) so that this Court could obser3e his sincerity and candor! =e also as6ed for lea3e to file a written

e8planation )in the e3ent this Court has no time to hear him in person!) To gi3e him the ampliest latitude for his

defense, he was allowed to file a written e8planation and thereafter was heard in oral argument!

=is written answer, as undignified and cynical as it is unchastened, offers @no apology! 2ar from being contrite

Atty! Almacen unremittingly repeats his 7eremiad of lamentations, this time embellishing it with abundant

sarcasm and innuendo! Thus5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


At the start, let me 4uote passages from the =oly Bible, Chapter <, #t! Matthew5 (

)?o not 7udge, that you may not be 7udged! 2or with what 7udgment you

7udge, you shall be 7udged, and with what measure you measure, it shall be

measured to you! But why dost thou see the spec6 in thy brothers eye, and

yet dost not consider the beam in thy own eye 1r how can thou say to thy

brother, )*et me cast out the spec6 from thy eye)0 and behold, there is abeam in thy own eye Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam from thy own

eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the spec6 from thy brothers

eyes!)

)Therefore all that you wish men to do to you, e3en to do you also to them5

for this is the *aw and the Prophets!)

888 888 888

Lour respondent has no intention of disa3owing the statements mentioned in his petition! 1n

the contrary, he refirms the truth of what he stated, compatible with his lawyers oath that he

will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court! But he 3igorously ?ENL under

oath that the underscored statements contained in the C=ARE are insolent, contemptuous,

grossly disrespectful and derogatory to the indi3idual members of the Court0 that they tend to

bring the entire Court, without 7ustification, into disrepute0 and constitute conduct unbecoming

of a member of the noble profession of law!

888 888 888

Respondent stands four@s4uare that his statement is borne by TR.T= and has been asserted

with N1 MA*+CE BE21RE AN? A2TER T=1.=T but mainly moti3ated with the highest

interest of 7ustice that in the particular case of our client, the members ha3e shown

callousness to our 3arious pleas for .#T+CE, our pleadings will bear us on this matter, !!!

888 888 888

To all these beggings, supplications, words of humility, appeals for charity, generosity,

fairness, understanding, sympathy and abo3e all in the highest interest of .#T+CE, ( what

did we get from this C1.RT 1ne word, ?EN+E?, with all its hardiness and insensibility! That

was the unfeeling of the Court towards our pleas and prayers, in simple word, it is plain

callousness towards our particular case!

888 888 888

Now that your respondent has the guts to tell the members of the Court that notwithstandingthe 3iolation of the Constitution, you remained unpunished, this Court in the re3erse order of

natural things, is now in the attempt to inflict punishment on your respondent for acts he said

in good faith!

?id =is =onors care to listen to our pleadings and supplications for .#T+CE, C=AR+TL,

ENER1#+TL and 2A+RNE## ?id =is =onors attempt to 7ustify their stubborn denial with

any semblance of reason, NE:ER! Now that your respondent is gi3en the opportunity to face

you, he reiterates the same statement with emphasis, ?+? L1. #ir! +s this! the way of life in

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the Philippines today, that e3en our own President, said5 ( )the story is current, though

nebulous ,is to its truth, it is still being circulated that 7ustice in the Philippines today is not

what it is used to be before the war! There are those who ha3e told me fran6ly and brutally

that 7ustice is a commodity, a mar6etable commodity in the Philippines!)

888 888 888

/e condemn the #+N, not the #+NNER! /e detest the ACT#, not the ACT1R! /e attac6 the

decision of this Court, not the members! !!! /e were pro3o6ed! /e were compelled by force of

necessity! /e were angry but we waited for the finality of the decision! /e waited until this

Court has performed its duties! /e ne3er interfered nor obstruct in the performance of their

duties! But in the end, after seeing that the Constitution has placed finality on your 7udgment

against our client and sensing that you ha3e not performed your duties with )circumspection,

carefulness, confidence and wisdom), your Respondent rise to claim his od gi3en right to

spea6 the truth and his Constitutional right of free speech!

888 888 888

The +N.#T+CE# which we ha3e attributed to this Court and the further 3iolations we sought

to be pre3ented is impliedly shared by our President! !!! !

888 888 888

/hat has been abhored and condemned, are the 3ery things that were applied to us! Recalling Madam

Rolands famous apostrophe during the 2rench re3olution, )1 *iberty, what crimes are committed in thy name),

we may dare say, )1 .#T+CE, what technicalities are committed in thy name or more appropriately, 1

.#T+CE, what in7ustices are committed in thy name!)

888 888 888

/e must admit that this Court is not free from commission of any abuses, but who would

correct such abuses considering that yours is a court of last resort! A strong public opinion

must be generated so as to curtail these abuses!

888 888 888

The phrase, *ustice is blind is symboli"e in paintings that can be found in all courts and

go3ernment offices! /e ha3e added only two more symbols, that it is also deaf and dumb!

?eaf in the sense that no members of this Court has e3er heard our cries for charity,

generosity, fairness, understanding sympathy and for 7ustice0 dumb in the sense, that inspite

of our beggings, supplications, and pleadings to gi3e us reasons why our appeal has been

?EN+E?, not one word was spo6en or gi3en !!! /e refer to no human defect or ailment in theabo3e statement! /e only describe the! impersonal state of things and nothing more!

888 888 888

As we ha3e stated, we ha3e lost our faith and confidence in the members of this Court and for

which reason we offered to surrender our lawyers certificate, +N TR.#T 1N*L! Because what

has been lost today may be regained tomorrow! As the offer was intended as our self@imposed

sacrifice, then we alone may decide as to when we must end our self@sacrifice! +f we ha3e to

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


choose between forcing oursel3es to ha3e faith and confidence in the members of the Court

but disregard our Constitution and to uphold the Constitution and be condemned by the

members of this Court, there is no choice, we must uphold the latter!

But o3erloo6ing, for the nonce, the 3ituperati3e chaff which he claims is not intended as a studied disrespect to

this Court, let us e8amine the grain of his grie3ances!

=e chafes at the minute resolution denial of his petition for re3iew! /e are 4uite aware of the

criticisms e8pressed against this Courts practice of re7ecting petitions by minute resolutions! /e ha3e

been as6ed to do away with it, to state the facts and the law, and to spell out the reasons for denial! /e

ha3e gi3en this suggestion 3ery careful thought! 2or we 6now the ab7ect frustration of a lawyer who

tediously collates the facts and for many weary hours meticulously marshalls his arguments, only to ha3e

his efforts rebuffed with a terse unadorned denial! Truth to tell, howe3er, most petitions re7ected by this

Court are utterly fri3olous and ought ne3er to ha3e been lodged at all!3 The rest do e8hibit a first@

impression cogency, but fail to, withstand critical scrutiny! By and large, this Court has been generous in

gi3ing due course to petitions for certiorari !

Be this as it may, were we to accept e3ery case or write a full opinion for e3ery petition we re7ect, we would beunable to carry out effecti3ely the burden placed upon us by the Constitution! The proper role of the #upreme

Court, as Mr! Chief ustice :inson of the .!#! #upreme Court has defined it, is to decide )only those cases

which present 4uestions whose resolutions will ha3e immediate importance beyond the particular facts and

parties in3ol3ed!) Pertinent here is the obser3ation of Mr! ustice 2ran6furter in Mar"land 's. alti%ore Radio

Sho! , &% *! ed >;, >5

A 3ariety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different

reasons may read different 7ustices to the same result !!! !

#ince there are these conflicting, and, to the uninformed, e3en confusing reasons for denying

petitions for certiorari , it has been suggested from time to time that the Court indicate its

reasons for denial! Practical considerations preclude! +n order that the Court may be enabledto discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of the Courts business,

in effect, within the Courts discretion! ?uring the last three terms the Court disposed of ;D,

;$<, ;;% cases, respecti3ely, on their merits! 2or the same three terms the Court denied,

respecti3ely, $,;D, $,$D>,$,$'& petitions calling for discretionary re3iew! +f the Court is to do

its wor6 it would not be feasible to gi3e reasons, howe3er brief, for refusing to ta6e these

cases! The tune that would be re4uired is prohibiti3e! Apart from the fact that as already

indicated different reasons not infre4uently mo3e different members of the Court in concluding

that a particular case at a particular time ma6es re3iew undesirable!

#i8 years ago, in o'ino, et al., 3s! &ourt of Appeals, et al., $,;$D&', May 9$, $&9 D 1!! 'D&&, this Court,

through the then Chief ustice Cesar Beng"on, articulated its considered 3iew on this matter! There, the

petitioners counsel urged that a )lac6 of merit) resolution 3iolates #ection $; of Article :+++ of the Constitution!#aid Chief ustice Beng"on5

+n connection with identical short resolutions, the same 4uestion has been raised before0 and

we held that these )resolutions) are not )decisions) within the abo3e constitutional

re4uirement! They merely hold that the petition for re3iew should not be entertained in 3iew of

the pro3isions of Rule % of the Rules of Court0 and e3en ordinary lawyers ha3e all this time

so understood it! +t should be remembered that a petition to re3iew the decision of the Court of

Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound 7udicial discretion0 and so there is no need to

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


fully e8plain the courts denial! 2or one thing, the facts and the law are already mentioned in

the Court of Appeals opinion!

By the way, this mode of disposal has ( as intended ( helped the Court in alle3iating its

hea3y doc6et0 it was patterned after the practice of the .!#! #upreme Court, wherein petitions

for re3iew are often merely ordered )dismissed)!

/e underscore the fact that cases ta6en to this Court on petitions for certiorari from the Court of Appeals ha3e

had the benefit of appellate re3iew! =ence, the need for compelling reasons to buttress such petitions if this

Court is to be mo3ed into accepting them! 2or it is a8iomatic that the super3isory 7urisdiction 3ested upon this

Court o3er the Court of Appeals is not intended to gi3e e3ery losing party another hearing! This a8iom is implied

in sec! % of Rule %> of the Rules of Court which recites5

Re'ie! of &ourt of Appeals# decision discretionar" !(A re3iew is not a matter of right but of

sound 7udicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important

reasons therefor! The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the courts

discretion, indicate the character of reasons which will be considered5

a /hen the Court of Appeals has decided a 4uestion of substance, not theretofore

determined by the #upreme Court, nor has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law

or with the applicable decisions of the #upreme Court0

b /hen the Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of

7udicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by the lower court, as to call for the

e8ercise of the power of super3ision!

Recalling Atty! Almacens petition for re3iew, we found, upon a thoroughgoing e8amination of the pleadings! and

records, that the Court of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of his appeal in the light of

the law and applicable decisions of this Court! 2ar from straying away from the )accepted and usual course of

7udicial proceedings,) it traced the procedural lines etched by this Court in a number of decisions! There was,

therefore, no need for this Court to e8ercise its super3isory power!

As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far bac6 as $&%$, Atty! Almacen 6new ( or ought to ha3e

6nown ( that for a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the mo3ant must not

only ser3e a copy of the motion upon the ad3erse party which he did, but also notify the ad3erse party of the

time and place of hearing which admittedly he did not! This rule was une4ui3ocally articulated in Manila

Suret" G Fidelit" 's. atu &onstruction G &o., supra5

The written notice referred to e3idently is prescribed for motions in general by Rule $>,

#ections % and > formerly Rule ;, which pro3ides that such notice shall state the time, and

place of hearing and shall be ser3ed upon all the Parties concerned at least three days in

ad3ance! And according to #ection of the same Rule no motion shall be acted upon by the

court without proof of such notice! +ndeed it has been held that in such a case the motion is

nothing but a useless piece of paper Philippine National Ban6 3! ?amasco, +,$'9', 2eb! ;',

$&90 citing Mana6il 3! Re3illa, %; Phil! '$0 Roman Catholic Bishop of *ipa 3! Municipality of

.nisan, %$ Phil! '0 and ?irector of *ands 3s! #an", %> Phil! $$<! The reason is ob3ious5

.nless the mo3ant sets the time and place of hearing the Court would ha3e no way to

determine whether that party agrees to or ob7ects to the motion, and if he ob7ects, to hear him

on his ob7ection, since the Rules themsel3es do not fi8 any period within which he may file his

reply or opposition!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


+f Atty! Almacen failed to mo3e the appellate court to re3iew the lower courts 7udgment, he has only himself to

blame! =is own negligence caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which, incidentally, is not a matter of

right! To shift away from himself the conse4uences of his carelessness, he loo6ed for a )whipping boy!) But he

made sure that he assumed the posture of a martyr, and, in offering to surrender his professional certificate, he

too6 the liberty of 3ilifying this Court and inflicting his e8acerbating rancor on the members thereof! +t would

thus appear that there is no 7ustification for his scurrilous and scandalous outbursts!

Nonetheless we ga3e this unprecedented act of Atty! Almacen the most circumspect consideration! /e 6now

that it is natural for a lawyer to e8press his dissatisfaction each time he loses what he sanguinely belie3es to be

a meritorious case! That is why lawyers are gi3en wide latitude to differ with, and 3oice their disappro3al of, not

only the courts rulings but, also the manner in which they are handed down!

Moreo3er, e3ery citi"en has the right to comment upon and critici"e the actuations of public officers! This right

is not diminished by the fact that the criticism is aimed at a 7udicial authority,4 or that it is articulated by a

lawyer!@ #uch right is especially recogni"ed where the criticism concerns a concluded litigation,2 because

then the courts actuations are thrown open to public consumption!< )1ur decisions and all our official

actions,) said the #upreme Court of Nebras6a,8 )are public property, and the press and the people ha3e

the undoubted right to comment on them, critici"e and censure them as they see fit! udicial officers, li6e

other public ser3ants, must answer for their official actions before the chancery of public opinion!)

The li6ely danger of confusing the fury of human reaction to an attac6 on ones integrity, competence and

honesty, with )imminent danger to the administration of 7ustice,) is the reason why courts ha3e been loath to

inflict punishment on those who assail their actuations!9 This danger lur6s especially in such a case as this

where those who #it as members of an entire Court are themsel3es collecti3ely the aggrie3ed parties!

Courts thus treat with forbearance and restraint a lawyer who 3igorously assails their actuations! 15 2or

courageous and fearless ad3ocates are the strands that wea3e durability into the tapestry of 7ustice!

=ence, as citi"en and officer of the court, e3ery lawyer is e8pected not only to e8ercise the right, but also

to consider it his duty to e8pose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and 7udges! 11

Courts and 7udges are not sacrosanct! 1 They should and e8pect critical e3aluation of their

performance! 13 2or li6e the e8ecuti3e and the legislati3e branches, the 7udiciary is rooted in the soil of

democratic society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citi"ens whom it is e8pected to ser3e!

/ell@recogni"ed therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citi"en, to critici"e in

properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and 7udges! The reason is that

An attorney does not surrender, in assuming the important place accorded to him in the

administration of 7ustice, his right as a citi"en to critici"e the decisions of the courts in a fair

and respectful manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the 7udiciary, has

always been encouraged by the courts! 4n re Ades, 2 #upp! %'< !

Criticism of the courts has, indeed, been an important part of the traditional wor6 of the bar! +n the prosecution

of appeals, he points out the errors of lower courts! +n written for law 7ournals he dissects with detachment the

doctrinal pronouncements of courts and fearlessly lays bare for @all to see that flaws and inconsistence) of the

doctrines >ill '. "%an, $; NL# ;d ;'! As aptly stated by Chief ustice #harswood in Ex Parte Stein%an,

%D Am! Rep! %$5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the e8pansion or publication of

opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of 7udges than members of the bar! They

ha3e the best opportunities for obser3ing and forming a correct 7udgment! They are in

constant attendance on the courts! !!! To say that an attorney can only act or spea6 on this

sub7ect under liability to be called to account and to be depri3ed of his profession and

li3elihood, by the 7udge or 7udges whom he may consider it his duty to attac6 and e8pose, is a

position too monstrous to beentertained! !!! !

=ence, as a citi"en and as 1fficer of the court a lawyer is e8pected not only to e8ercise the right, but also to

consider it his duty to a3ail of such right! No law may abridge this right! Nor is he )professionally answerable for

a scrutiny into the official conduct of the 7udges, which would not e8pose him to legal animad3ersion as a

citi"en!) &ase of Austin, ;' Am! ?ee! ><, >!

Abo3e all others, the members of the bar ha3e the beat 1pportunity to become con3ersant

with the character and efficiency of our 7udges! No class is less li6ely to abuse the pri3ilege, as

no other class has as great an interest in the preser3ation of an able and upright bench!

State oard of Exa%iners in a! '. >art , $$ N!/! ;$;, ;$

To curtail the right of a lawyer to be critical of the foibles of courts and 7udges is to seal the lips of those in the

best position to gi3e ad3ice and who might consider it their duty to spea6 disparagingly! ).nder such a rule,) so

far as the bar is concerned, )the merits of a sitting 7udge may be rehearsed, but as to his demerits there must

be profound silence!) State '. &ircuit &ourt , <; N!/! $&

But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill o3er the walls of

decency and propriety! A wide chasm e8ists between fair criticism, on the 1ne hand, and abuse and slander of

courts and the 7udges thereof, on the other! +ntemperate and unfair criticism is a gross 3iolation of the duty of

respect to courts! +t is #uch a misconduct that sub7ects a lawyer to disciplinary action!

2or, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flu8 and ferment!

=is in3estiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more e8acting and

more imperati3e than that of respectful beha3ior toward the courts! =e 3ows solemnly to conduct himself )with

all good fidelity !!! to the courts0 14 and the Rules of Court constantly remind him )to obser3e and maintain

the respect due to courts of 7ustice and 7udicial officers!) 1@ The first canon of legal ethics en7oins him )to

maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sa6e of the temporary incumbent of the

7udicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance!)

As Mr! ustice 2ield puts it5

!!! the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by e8press declaration ta6e

upon themsel3es, when they are admitted to the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the

Constitution and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect due to courts of 7ustice and

7udicial officers! This obligation is not discharged by merely obser3ing the rules of courteous

demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and

offensi3e conduct toward 7udges personally for their 7udicial acts! Bradley, 3! 2isher, ;D *aw!

%d! %<, >;

The lawyers duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of

7ustice! =ence, in the ( assertion of their clients rights, lawyers ( e3en those gifted with superior intellect are

en7oined to rein up their tempers!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the 7udge,

and it may ta8 his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but

discipline and self@respect are as necessary to the orderly administration of 7ustice as they are

to the effecti3eness of an army! The decisions of the 7udge must be obeyed, because he is the

tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering

respectful submission! 4n Re Scouten, %D Atl! %'$

/e concede that a lawyer may thin6 highly of his intellectual endowment That is his pri3ilege!

And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others lac6 of it! That is his misfortune! #ome

such frame of mind, howe3er, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attac6

a courts decision in words calculated to 7ettison the time@honored aphorism that courts are the

temples of right! Per ustice #anche" in Rhee% of the Philippines 's. Ferrer , *@;;&<&! une

;, $&<

+n his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not di3ide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and

a mere citi"en at another! Thus, statements made by an attorney in pri3ate con3ersations or

communications 12 or in the course of a political, campaign, 1< if couched in insulting language as to bring

into scorn and disrepute the administration of 7ustice, may sub7ect the attorney to disciplinary action!

1f fundamental pertinence at this 7uncture is an e8amination of rele3ant parallel precedents!

$! Admitting that a )7udge as a public official is neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticism of his conduct

in office,) the #upreme Court of Florida in State '. &alhoon, $D; #o! ;d D%, D', ne3ertheless declared that

)any conduct of a lawyer which brings into scorn and disrepute the administration of 7ustice demands

condemnation and the application of appropriate penalties,) adding that5

+t would be contrary to, e3ery democratic theory to hold that a 7udge or a court is beyond bona

fide comments and criticisms which do not e8ceed the bounds of decency and truth or which

are not aimed at! the destruction of public confidence in the 7udicial system as such! =owe3er,

when the li6ely impairment of the administration of 7ustice the direct product of false and

scandalous accusations then the rule is otherwise!

;! +n 4n Re <lenn, $9D N!/! ;d <;, an attorney was suspended for putting out and circulating a leaflet entitled

).#T+CE +N 1T.M/A,) which accused a municipal 7udge of ha3ing committed 7udicial error, of being so

pre7udiced as to deny his clients a fair trial on appeal and of being sub7ect to the control of a group of city

officials! As a prefatory statement he wrote5 )They say that ustice is B*+N?, but it too6 Municipal udge /illard

to pro3e that it is also ?EA2 and ?.MBW) The court did not hesitate to find that the leaflet went much further

than the accused, as a lawyer, had a right to do!

The entire publication e3idences a desire on the part 1f the accused to belittle and besmirch

the court and to bring it into disrepute with the general public!

9! +n 4n Re >u%phre" , $9 Pac! D, the #upreme Court of California affirmed the two@year suspension of an

attorney who published a circular assailing a 7udge who at that time was a candidate for re@election to a 7udicial

office! The circular which referred to two decisions of the 7udge concluded with a statement that the 7udge )used

his 7udicial office to enable @said ban6 to 6eep that money!) #aid the court5

/e are aware that there is a line of authorities which place no limit to the criticism members of

the bar may ma6e regarding the capacity, impartiality, or integrity of the courts, e3en though it

e8tends to the deliberate publication by the attorney capable of correct reasoning of baseless

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


insinuations against the intelligence and integrity of the highest courts! #ee State oard, etc.

'. >art ! $$ N!/! ;$;, $< *RA N!#! >'>, $> Ann Cas $&< and note5 E8 parte #teinman &>

Pac! ;;D, %D Am! Rep! 9<! +n the first case mentioned it was obser3ed, for instance5

)+t may be although we do not so decide that a libelous publication by an

attorney, directed against a 7udicial officer, could be so 3ile and of such a

nature as to 7ustify the disbarment of its author!)

Let the false charges made by an attorney in that case were of gra3er character than those

made by the respondent here! But, in our 3iew, the better rule is that which re4uires of those

who are permitted to en7oy the pri3ilege of practicing law the strictest obser3ance at all times

of the principles of truth, honesty and fairness, especially in their criticism of the courts, to the

end that the public confidence in the due administration of 7ustice be upheld, and the dignity

and usefulness of the courts be maintained! +n re Collins, '$ Pac! ;;D!

%! +n People ex rel &hicago ar Asso. '. Metzen, $;9 N!E! <9%, an attorney, representing a woman who had

been granted a di3orce, attac6ed the 7udge who set aside the decree on bill of re3iew! =e wrote the 7udge a

threatening letter and ga3e the press the story of a proposed libel suit against the 7udge and others! The letter

began5

.nless the record in 4n re Petersen '. Petersen is cleared up so that my name is protected

from the libel, lies, and per7ury committed in the cases in3ol3ed, + shall be compelled to resort

to such drastic action as the law allows and the case warrants!

2urther, he said5 )=owe3er let me assure you + do not intend to allow such dastardly wor6 to go unchallenged,)

and said that he was engaged in dealing with men and not irresponsible political mani6ins or appearances of

men! 1rdering the attorneys disbarment, the #upreme Court of +llinois declared5

!!! udges are not e8empt from 7ust criticism, and whene3er there is proper ground for serious

complaint against a 7udge, it is the right and duty of a lawyer to submit his grie3ances to the

proper authorities, but the public interest and the administration of the law demand that the

courts should ha3e the confidence and respect of the people! .n7ust criticism, insulting

language, and offensi3e conduct toward the 7udges personally by attorneys, who are officers

of the court, which tend to bring the courts and the law into disrepute and to destroy public

confidence in their integrity, cannot be permitted! The letter written to the 7udge was plainly an

attempt to intimidate and influence him in the discharge of 7udicial functions, and the bringing

of the unauthori"ed suit, together with the write@up in the #unday papers, was intended and

calculated to bring the court into disrepute with the public!

>! +n a public speech, a Rhode +sland lawyer accused the courts of the state of being influenced by corruption

and greed, saying that the seats of the #upreme Court were bartered! +t does not appear that the attorney had

critici"ed any of the opinions or decisions of the Court! The lawyer was charged with unprofessional conduct,

and was ordered suspended for a period of two years! The Court said5

A calumny of that character, if belie3ed, would tend to wea6en the authority of the court

against whose members it was made, bring its 7udgments into contempt, undermine its

influence as an unbiased arbiter of the peoples right, and interfere with the administration of

7ustice! !!!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Because a man is a member of the bar the court will not, under the guise of disciplinary

proceedings, depri3e him of any part of that freedom of speech which he possesses as a

citi"en! The acts and decisions of the courts of this state, in cases that ha3e reached final

determination, are not e8empt from fair and honest comment and criticism! +t is only when an

attorney transcends the limits of legitimate criticism that he will be held responsible for an

abuse of his liberty of speech! /e well understand that an independent bar, as well as

independent court, is always a 3igilant defender of ci3il rights! 4n Re -ro" , $$$ Atl! <;9! <;>!

! +n 4n Re Roc:%ore, $$$ NL# '<&, an attorney was suspended for si8 months for submitting to an appellate

court an affida3it reflecting upon the 7udicial integrity of the court from which the appeal was ta6en! #uch action,

the Court said, constitutes unprofessional conduct 7ustifying suspension from practice, notwithstanding that he

fully retracted and withdrew the statements, and asserted that the affida3it was the result of an impulse caused

by what he considered gra3e in7ustice! The Court said5

/e cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there is a growing habit in the profession of criticising

the moti3es and integrity of 7udicial officers in the discharge of their duties, and thereby

reflecting on the administration of 7ustice and creating the impression that 7udicial action is

influenced by corrupt or improper moti3es! E3ery attorney of this court, as well as e3ery other

citi"en, has the right and it is his duty, to submit charges to the authorities in whom is 3estedthe power to remo3e 7udicial officers for any conduct or act of a 7udicial officer that tends to

show a 3iolation of his duties, or would 7ustify an inference that he is false to his trust, or has

improperly administered the duties de3ol3ed upon him0 and such charges to the tribunal, if

based upon reasonable inferences, will be encouraged, and the person ma6ing them

protected! !!! /hile we recogni"e the inherent right of an attorney in a case decided against

him, or the right of the Public generally, to criticise the decisions of the courts, or the reasons

announced for them, the habit of criticising the moti3es of 7udicial officers in the performance

of their official duties, when the proceeding is not against the officers whose acts or moti3es

are criticised, tends to sub3ert the confidence of the community in the courts of 7ustice and in

the administration of 7ustice0 and when such charges are made by officers of the courts, who

are bound by their duty to protect the administration of 7ustice, the attorney ma6ing such

charges is guilty of professional misconduct!

<! +n 4n Re Mitchell , <$ #o! %<, a lawyer published this statement5

+ accepted the decision in this case, howe3er, with patience, barring possible temporary

obser3ations more or less 3ituperati3e and finally concluded, that, as my clients were

foreigners, it might ha3e been e8pecting too much to loo6 for a decision in their fa3or against

a widow residing here!

The #upreme Court of Alabama declared that5

!!! the e8pressions abo3e set out, not only transcend the bounds of propriety and pri3ileged

criticism, but are an unwarranted attac6, direct, or by insinuation and innuendo, upon themoti3es and integrity of this court, and ma6e out a pri%a facie case of improper conduct upon

the part of a lawyer who holds a license from this court and who is under oath to demean

himself with all good fidelity to the court as well as to his client!

The charges, howe3er, were dismissed after the attorney apologi"ed to the Court!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


'! +n State ex rel. 1abne" '. rec:enridge, ;>' Pac! <%<, an attorney published in a newspaper an article in

which he impugned the moti3es of the court and its members to try a case, charging the court of ha3ing

arbitrarily and for a sinister purpose underta6en to suspend the writ of habeas corpus! The Court suspended

the respondent for 9D days, saying that5

The pri3ileges which the law gi3es to members of the bar is one most sub3ersi3e of the public

good, if the conduct of such members does not measure up to the re4uirements of the lawitself, as well as to the ethics of the profession! !!!

The right of free speech and free discussion as to 7udicial determination is of prime

importance under our system and ideals of go3ernment! No right thin6ing man would concede

for a moment that the best interest to pri3ate citi"ens, as well as to public officials, whether he

labors in a 7udicial capacity or otherwise, would be ser3ed by denying this right of free speech

to any indi3idual! But such right does not ha3e as its corollary that members of the bar who

are sworn to act honestly and honorably both with their client and with the courts where 7ustice

is administered, if administered at all, could e3er properly ser3e their client or the public good

by designedly misstating facts or carelessly asserting the law! Truth and honesty of purpose

by members of the bar in such discussion is necessary! The health of a municipality is none

the less impaired by a polluted water supply than is the health of the thought of a communitytoward the 7udiciary by the filthy wanton, and malignant misuse of members of the bar of the

confidence the public, through its duly established courts, has reposed in them to deal with

the affairs of the pri3ate indi3idual, the protection of whose rights he lends his strength and

money to maintain the 7udiciary! 2or such conduct on the part of the members of the bar the

law itself demands retribution ( not the court!

&! +n ar Ass#n of San Francisco '. Philbroo: , $<D Pac! %%D, the filing of an affida3it by an attorney in a pending

action using in respect to the se3eral 7udges the terms criminal corrupt, and wic6ed conspiracies,,) )criminal

confederates,) )colossal and confident insolence,) )criminal prosecution,) )calculated brutality,) )a corrupt

deadfall,) and similar phrases, was considered conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar, and the name of

the erring lawyer was ordered stric6en from the roll of attorneys!

$D! +n State oard of Exa%iners '. >art, $$ N!/! ;$>, the erring attorney claimed that greater latitude should

be allowed in case of criticism of cases finally ad7udicated than in those pending! This lawyer wrote a personal

letter to the Chief ustice of the #upreme Court of Minnesota impugning both the intelligence and the integrity

of the said Chief ustice and his associates in the decisions of certain appeals in which he had been attorney

for the defeated litigants! The letters were published in a newspaper! 1ne of the letters contained this

paragraph5

Lou assigned it the property in3ol3ed to one who has no better right to it than the burglar to

his plunder! +t seems li6e robbing a widow to reward a fraud, with the court acting as a fence,

or umpire, watchful and 3igilant that the widow got no undue

ad3antage! !!! The point is this5 +s a proper moti3e for the decisions disco3erable, short of

assigning to the court emasculated intelligence, or a constipation of morals and faithlessnessto duty +f the state bar association, or a committee chosen from its ran6, or the faculty of the

.ni3ersity *aw #chool, aided by the researches of its hundreds of bright, acti3e students, or if

any member of the court, or any other person, can formulate a statement of a correct moti3e

for the decision, which shall not re4uire fumigation before it is stated, and 4uarantine after it is

made, it will gratify e3ery right@minded citi"en of the state to read it!

The #upreme Court of Minnesota, in ordering the suspension of the attorney for si8 months, deli3ered its

opinion as follows5

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The 4uestion remains whether the accused was guilty of professional misconduct in sending

to the Chief ustice the letter addressed to him! This was done, as we ha3e found, for the 3ery

purpose of insulting him and the other 7ustices of this court0 and the insult was so directed to

the Chief ustice personally because of acts done by him and his associates in their official

capacity! #uch a communication, so made, could ne3er subser3e any good purpose! +ts only

effect in any case would be to gratify the spite of an angry attorney and humiliate the officers

so assailed! +t would not and could not e3er enlighten the public in regard to their 7udicialcapacity or integrity! Nor was it an e8ercise by the accused of any constitutional right, or of

any pri3ilege which any reputable attorney, uninfluenced by passion, could e3er ha3e any

occasion or desire to assert! No 7udicial officer, with due regard to his position, can resent

such an insult otherwise than by methods sanctioned by law0 and for any words, oral or

written, howe3er abusi3e, 3ile, or indecent, addressed secretly to the 7udge alone, he can

ha3e no redress in any action triable by a 7ury! )The sending of a libelous communication or

libelous matter to the person defamed does not constitute an actionable publication!) $' Am!

I Eng! Enc! *aw ;d Ed! p! $D$<! +n these respects the sending by the accused of this letter

to the Chief ustice was wholly different from his other acts charged in the accusation, and, as

we ha3e said, wholly different principles are applicable thereto!

The conduct of the accused was in e3ery way discreditable0 but so far as he e8ercised therights of a citi"en, guaranteed by the Constitution and sanctioned by considerations of public

policy, to which reference has been made, he was immune, as we hold, from the penalty here

sought to be enforced! To that e8tent his rights as a citi"en were paramount to the obligation

which he had assumed as an officer of this court! /hen, howe3er he proceeded and thus

assailed the Chief ustice personally, he e8ercised no right which the court can recogni"e, but,

on the contrary, willfully 3iolated his obligation to maintain the respect due to courts and

7udicial officers! )This obligation is not discharged by merely obser3ing the rules of courteous

demeanor in open court, but it includes abstaining out of court from all insulting language and

offensi3e conduct toward the 7udges personally for their official acts!)radle" '. Fisher , $9

/all! .!#! 9>>, ;D *! Ed! %! And there appears to be no distinction, as regards the

principle in3ol3ed, between the indignity of an assault by an attorney upon a 7udge, induced by

his official act, and a personal insult for li6e cause by written or spo6en words addressed tothe 7udge in his chambers or at his home or elsewhere! Either act constitutes misconduct

wholly different from criticism of 7udicial acts addressed or spo6en to others! The distinction

made is, we thin6 entirely logical and well sustained by authority! +t was recogni"ed in Ex

parte Mc*eod supra! /hile the court in that case, as has been shown, fully sustained the right

of a citi"en to criticise rulings of the court in actions which are ended, it held that one might be

summarily punished for assaulting a 7udicial officer, in that case a commissioner of the court,

for his rulings in a cause wholly concluded! )+s it in the power of any person,) said the court,

)by insulting or assaulting the 7udge because of official acts, if only the assailant restrains his

passion until the 7udge lea3es the building, to compel the 7udge to forfeit either his own self@

respect to the regard of the people by tame submission to the indignity, or else set in his own

person the e3il e8ample of punishing the insult by ta6ing the law in his own hands !!! No

high@minded, manly man would hold 7udicial office under such conditions!)

That a communication such as this, addressed to the udge personally, constitutes

professional delin4uency for which a professional punishment may be imposed, has been

directly decided! )An attorney who, after being defeated in a case, wrote a personal letter to

the trial 7ustice, complaining of his conduct and reflecting upon his integrity as a 7ustice, is

guilty of misconduct and will be disciplined by the court!) Matter of Manheim $99 App! ?i3!

$9, && N!L! #upp! '< The same is held in Re riffin City Ct! $ N!L! < and in Re /il6es City

Ct! 9 N!L! +n the latter case it appeared that the accused attorney had addressed a sealed

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


letter to a 7ustice of the City Court of New Lor6, in which it was stated, in reference to his

decision5 )+t is not law0 neither is it common sense! The result is + ha3e been robbed of 'D!)

And it was decided that, while such conduct was not a contempt under the state, the matter

should be )called to the attention of the #upreme Court, which has power to discipline the

attorney!) )+f,) says the court, )counsel learned in the law are permitted by writings le3eled at

the heads of 7udges, to charge them with ignorance, with un7ust rulings, and with robbery,

either as principals or accessories, it will not be long before the general public may feel thatthey may redress their fancied grie3ances in li6e manner, and thus the lot of a 7udge will be

anything but a happy one, and the administration of 7ustice will fall into bad repute!)

The recent case of *ohnson '. State Ala! %% #outh! <$, was in this respect much the same

as the case at bar! The accused, an attorney at law, wrote and mailed a letter to the circuit

7udge, which the latter recei3ed by due course of mail, at his home, while not holding court,

and which referred in insulting terms to the conduct of the 7udge in a cause wherein the

accused had been one of the attorneys! 2or this it was held that the attorney was rightly

disbarred in ha3ing )willfully failed to maintain respect due to him the 7udge as a 7udicial

officer, and thereby breached his oath as an attorney!) As recogni"ing the same principle, and

in support of its application to the facts of this case, we cite the following5 Ex parte Bradley, <

/all .!#! 9%, $& *! Ed! ;$%0 eene '. State, ;; Ar6! $%&0&o%%on!ealth '. 1andridge, ;:a! Cas! %D'0 People '. <reen, < Colo ;9<, ;%%, 9 Pac! >, 9<%, %& Am! Rep! 9>$0 #miths

Appeal, $<& Pa! $%, 9 Atl! $9%0 #coutens Appeal, $' Pa! ;<D, Atl! %'$!

1ur conclusion is that the charges against the accused ha3e been so far sustained as to

ma6e it our duty to impose such a penalty as may be sufficient lesson to him and a suitable

warning to others! !!!

$$! +n &obb '. ;nited States, $<; 2! %$, the court affirmed a lawyers suspension for $' months for publishing

a letter in a newspaper in which he accused a 7udge of being under the sinister influence of a gang that had

paraly"ed him for two years!

$;! +n 4n Re <ra'es, ;;$ Pac! %$$, the court held that an attorneys un7ustifiable attac6 against the official actsand decisions of a 7udge constitutes )moral turpitude!) There, the attorney was disbarred for criticising not only

the 7udge, but his decisions in general claiming that the 7udge was dishonest in reaching his decisions and

unfair in his general conduct of a case!

$9! +n 4n Re 1oss, $; N!E! ;d >&, an attorney published newspaper articles after the trial of cases, criticising

the court in intemperate language! The in3ariable effect of this sort of propaganda, said the court, is to breed

disrespect for courts and bring the legal profession into disrepute with the public, for which reason the lawyer

was disbarred!

$%! +n State '. <ri%es, 9>% Pac! ;d $D', an attorney, dissatisfied with the loss of a case, prepared o3er a period

of years 3icious attac6s on 7urists! The 16lahoma #upreme Court declared that his acts in3ol3ed such gross

moral turpitude as to ma6e him unfit as a member of the bar! =is disbarment was ordered, e3en though hee8pressed an intention to resign from the bar!

The teaching deri3ed from the abo3e dis4uisition and impressi3e affluence of 7udicial pronouncements is

indubitable5 Post@litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their 7udicial

actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and

legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to sub3ert public confidence in their integrity

and in the orderly administration of 7ustice, constitute gra3e professional misconduct which may be 3isited with

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary sanctions by the #upreme Court in the e8ercise of the

prerogati3es inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal fraternity!

1f course, rarely ha3e we wielded our disciplinary powers in the face of unwarranted outbursts of counsel such

as those catalogued in the abo3e@cited 7urisprudence! Cases of comparable nature ha3e generally been

disposed of under the power of courts to punish for contempt which, although resting on different bases and

calculated to attain a different end, ne3ertheless illustrates that uni3ersal abhorrence of such condemnablepractices!

A perusal of the more representati3e of these instances may afford enlightenment!

$! +n Salcedo 's. >ernandez , $ Phil! <;%, where counsel branded the denial of his motion for reconsideration

as )absolutely erroneous and constituting an outrage to the rigths of the petitioner 2elipe #alcedo and a

moc6ery of the popular will e8pressed at the polls,) this Court, although conceding that

+t is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his client, should

do so with all the fer3or and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and ne3er will be so

for him to e8ercise said right by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the propriety

and respect which the dignity of the courts re4uires! The reason for this is that respect for the

courts guarantees the stability of their institution! /ithout such guaranty, said institution would

be resting on a 3ery sha6y foundation,

found counsel guilty of contempt inasmuch as, in its opinion, the statements made disclosed

!!! an ine8cusable disrespect of the authority of the court and an intentional contempt of its

dignity, because the court is thereby charged with no less than ha3ing proceeded in utter

disregard of the laws, the rights to the parties, and of the untoward conse4uences, or with

ha3ing abused its power and moc6ed and flouted the rights of Attorney :icente ! 2ranciscos

client !!! !

;! +n 4n re Sotto, '; Phil! >&>, counsel, a senator and the author of the Press 2reedom *aw, reaching to, the

imprisonment for contempt of one Angel Para"o, who, in3o6ing said law, refused to di3ulge the source of a

news item carried in his paper, caused to be published in i local newspaper a statement e8pressing his regret

)that our =igh Tribunal has not only erroneously interpreted said law, but it is once more putting in e3idence the

incompetency or narrow mindedness of the ma7ority of its members,) and his belief that )+n the wa6e of so

many blunders and in7ustices deliberately committed during these last years, !!! the only remedy to put an end

to go much e3il, is to change the members of the #upreme Court,) which tribunal he denounced as )a constant

peril to liberty and democracy) and )a far cry from the impregnable bulwar6 of 7ustice of those memorable times

of Cayetano Arellano, :ictorino Mapa, Manuel Araullo and other learned 7urists who were the honor and glory of

the Philippine udiciary!) =e there also announced that one of the first measures he would introduce in then

forthcoming session of Congress would ha3e for its ob7ect the complete reorgani"ation of the #upreme Court!

2inding him in contempt, despite his a3owals of good faith and his in3ocation of the guarantee of free speech,

this Court declared5

But in the abo3e@4uoted written statement which he caused to be published in the press, the

respondent does not merely critici"e or comment on the decision of the Para"o case, which

was then and still is pending consideration by this Court upon petition of Angel Para"o! =e not

only intends to intimidate the members of this Court with the presentation of a bill in the ne8t

Congress, of which he is one of the members, reorgani"ing the #upreme Court and reducing

the number of ustices from ele3en, so as to change the members of this Court which decided

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


the Para"o case, who according to his statement, are incompetent and narrow minded, in

order to influence the final decision of said case by this Court, and thus embarrass or obstruct

the administration of 7ustice! But the respondent also attac6s the honesty and integrity of this

Court for the apparent purpose of bringing the ustices of this Court into disrepute and

degrading the administration! of 7ustice !!! !

To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately somany blunders and in7ustices, that is to say, that it has been deciding in fa3or of Hue party

6nowing that the law and 7ustice is on the part of the ad3erse party and not on the one in

whose fa3or the decision was rendered, in many cases decided during the last years, would

tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the

members of this Court, and conse4uently to lower ,or degrade the administration of 7ustice by

this Court! The #upreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwar6 to

which the 2ilipino people may repair to obtain relief for their grie3ances or protection of their

rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty

and integrity of the members of this Court and belie3e that they cannot e8pect 7ustice

therefrom, they might be dri3en to ta6e the law into their own hands, and disorder and

perhaps chaos might be the result! As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts, Atty!

:icente #otto, li6e any 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 ta6en as such attorney, and not to

promote distrust in the administration of 7ustice! Respect to the courts guarantees the stability

of other institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a 3ery sha6y foundation!

#ignificantly, too, the Court therein hastened to emphasi"e that

!!! an attorney as an officer of the court is under special obligation to be respectful in his

conduct and communication to the courts0 he may be remo3ed from office or stric6en from the

roll of attorneys as being guilty of flagrant misconduct $< *!R!A! N!#!, >', >&%!

9! +n Rhee% of the Philippines 's. FerrerH 4n re Proceedings against Alfonso Ponce Enrile, et al., supra , where

counsel charged this Court with ha3ing )repeatedly fallen) into ,the pitfall of blindly adhering to its pre3ious)erroneous) pronouncements, )in disregard of the law on 7urisdiction) of the Court of +ndustrial Relations, our

condemnation of counsels misconduct was une4ui3ocal! Articulating the sentiments of the Court, Mr! ustice

#anche" stressed5

As we loo6 bac6 at the language heretofore 4uoted employed in the motion for

reconsideration, implications there are which inescapably arrest attention! +t spea6s of one

pitfall into which this Court has repeatedl" fallen whene3er the 7urisdiction of the Court of

+ndustrial Relations comes into 4uestion! That pitfall is the tendency of this Court to rely on its

own pronouncements in disregard of the law on 7urisdiction! +t ma6es a sweeping charge that

the decisions of this Court, blindl" adhere to earlier rulings without as much as ma6ing any

reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute go3erning the 7urisdiction of the industrial

court! The plain import of all these is that this Court is so patently inept that in determining the 7urisdiction of the industrial court, it has committed error and continuously repeated that error

to the point of perpetuation! +t pictures this Court as one which refuses to hew to the line

drawn by the law on 7urisdictional boundaries! +mplicit in the 4uoted statements is that the

pronouncements of this Court on the 7urisdiction of the industrial court are not entitled to

respect! Those statements detract much from the dignity of and respect due this Court! They

bring into 4uestion the capability of the members ( and some former members of this Court

to render 7ustice! The second paragraph 4uoted yields a tone of sarcasm which counsel

labelled as )so called) the )rule against splitting of 7urisdiction!)

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#imilar thoughts and sentiments ha3e been e8pressed in other cases 18 which, in the interest of bre3ity, need

not now be re3iewed in detail!

1f course, a common denominator underlies the aforecited cases ( all of them in3ol3ed contumacious

statements made in pleadings filed pending litigation! #o that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protecti3e

mantle of contempt may ordinarily be in3o6ed only against scurrilous remar6s or malicious innuendoes while a

court mulls o3er a pending case and not after the conclusion thereof, 19 Atty! Almacen would now see6 to

sidestep the thrust of a contempt charge by his studied emphasis that the remar6s for which he is now

called upon to account were made only after this Court had written finis to his appeal! -his is of no

%o%ent !

The rule that bars contempt after a 7udicial proceeding has terminated, has lost much of its 3itality! 2or

sometime, this was the pre3ailing 3iew in this 7urisdiction! The first stir for a modification thereof, howe3er, came

when, inPeople 's. Alarcon, 5 the then Chief ustice Manuel :! Moran dissented with the holding of the

ma7ority, spea6ing thru ustice ose P! *aurel, which upheld the rule abo3e@ad3erted to! A complete

disengagement from the settled rule was later to be made in 4n re rillantes, 1 a contempt proceeding,

where the editor of the Manila <uardian was ad7udged in contempt for publishing an editorial which

asserted that the $&%% Bar E8aminations were conducted in a farcical manner after the 4uestion of the3alidity of the said e8aminations had been resol3ed and the case closed! :irtually, this was an adoption of

the 3iew e8pressed by Chief ustice Moran in his dissent in Alarcon to the effect that them may still be

contempt by publication e3en after a case has been terminated! #aid Chief ustice Moran in Alarcon5

A publication which tends to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in

administering 7ustice in a pending suit or proceeding, constitutes criminal contempt which is

summarily punishable by courts! A publication which tends to degrade the courts and to

destroy public confidence in them or that which tends to bring them in any way into disrepute,

constitutes li6ewise criminal contempt, and is e4ually punishable by courts! /hat is sought, in

the first 6ind of contempt, to be shielded against the influence of newspaper comments, is the

all@important duty of the courts to administer 7ustice in the decision of a pending case! +n the

second 6ind of contempt, the puniti3e hand of 7ustice is e8tended to 3indicate the courts fromany act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfa3or or to destroy public confidence in

them! +n the first there is no contempt where there is no action pending, as there is no

decision which might in any way be influenced by the newspaper publication! +n the second,

the contempt e8ists, with or without a pending case, as what is sought to be protected is the

court itself and its dignity! Courts would lose their utility if public confidence in them is

destroyed!

Accordingly, no comfort is afforded Atty! Almacen by the circumstance that his statements and actuations now

under consideration were made only after the 7udgment in his clients appeal had attained finality! =e could as

much be liable for contempt therefor as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal!

More than this, howe3er, consideration of whether or not he could be held liable for contempt for such postlitigation utterances and actuations, is here immaterial! By the tenor of our Resolution of No3ember $<, $&<,

we ha3e confronted the situation here presented solely in so far as it concerns Atty! Almacens professional

identity, his sworn duty as a lawyer and his fitness as an officer of this Court, in the e8ercise of the disciplinary

power the morals inherent in our authority and duty to safeguard and ethics of the legal profession and to

preser3e its ran6s from the intrusions of unprincipled and unworthy disciples of the noblest of callings! +n this

in4uiry, the pendency or non@pendency of a case in court is altogether of no conse4uence! The sole ob7ecti3e

of this proceeding is to preser3e the purity of the legal profession, by remo3ing or suspending a member whose

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


misconduct has pro3ed himself unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to

the office of an attorney!

.ndoubtedly, this is well within our authority to do! By constitutional mandate, our is the solemn duty,

amongst others, to determine the rules for admission to the practice of law! +nherent in this prerogati3e is

the corresponding authority to discipline and e8clude from the practice of law those who ha3e pro3ed

themsel3es unworthy of continued membership in the Bar! Thus (

The power to discipline attorneys, who are officers of the court, is an inherent and incidental

power in courts of record, and one which is essential to an orderly discharge of 7udicial

functions! To deny its e8istence is e4ui3alent to a declaration that the conduct of attorneys

towards courts and clients is not sub7ect to restraint! #uch a 3iew is without support in any

respectable authority, and cannot be tolerated! Any court ha3ing the right to admit attorneys to

practice and in this state that power is 3ested in this court@has the inherent right, in the

e8ercise of a sound 7udicial discretion to e8clude them from practice! 3

This, because the admission of a lawyer to the practice of law is a representation to all that he is worthy of their

confidence and respect! #o much so that (

!!! whene3er it is made to appear to the court that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust

and confidence of the public and of the courts, it becomes, not only the right, but the duty, of

the court which made him one of its officers, and ga3e him the pri3ilege of ministering within

its bar, to withdraw the pri3ilege! Therefore it is almost uni3ersally held that both the admission

and disbarment of attorneys are 7udicial acts, and that one is admitted to the bar and

e8ercises his functions as an attorney, not as a matter of right, but as a pri3ilege conditioned

on his own beha3ior and the e8ercise of a 7ust and sound 7udicial discretion! 4

+ndeed, in this 7urisdiction, that power to remo3e or suspend has risen abo3e being a mere inherent or

incidental power! +t has been ele3ated to an e8press mandate by the Rules of Court! @

1ur authority and duty in the premises being unmista6able, we now proceed to ma6e an assessment of

whether or not the utterances and actuations of Atty! Almacen here in 4uestion are properly the ob7ect of

disciplinary sanctions!

The proffered surrender of his lawyers certificate is, of course, purely potestati3e on Atty! Almacens part!

.northodo8 though it may seem, no statute, no law stands in its way! Beyond ma6ing the mere offer, howe3er,

he went farther! +n haughty and coarse language, he actually a3ailed of the said mo3e as a 3ehicle for his

3icious tirade against this Court! The integrated entirety of his petition bristles with 3ile insults all calculated to

dri3e home his contempt for and disrespect to the Court and its members! Picturing his client as )a sacrificial

3ictim at the altar of hypocrisy,) he categorically denounces the 7ustice administered by this Court to be not only

blind )but also deaf and dumb!) /ith unmitigated acerbity, he 3irtually ma6es this Court and its members with

3erbal talons, imputing to the Court the perpetration of )silent in7ustices) and )short@cut 7ustice) while at the

same time branding its members as )calloused to pleas of 7ustice!) And, true to his announced threat to argue

the cause of his client )in the peoples forum,) he caused the publication in the papers of an account of his

actuations, in a calculated effort 0to startle the public, stir up public indignation and disrespect toward the Court!

Called upon to ma6e an e8planation, he e8pressed no regret, offered no apology! +nstead, with characteristic

arrogance, he rehashed and reiterated his 3ituperati3e attac6s and, alluding to the #criptures, 3irtually tarred

and feathered the Court and its members as in3eterate hypocrites incapable of administering 7ustice and

unworthy to impose disciplinary sanctions upon him!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The 3irulence so blatantly e3ident in Atty! Almacens petition, answer and oral argumentation spea6s for itself!

The 3icious language used and the scurrilous innuendoes they carried far transcend the permissible bounds of

legitimate criticism! They could ne3er ser3e any purpose but to gratify the spite of an irate attorney, attract

public attention to himself and, more important of all, bring 0this Court and its members into disrepute and

destroy public confidence in them to the detriment of the orderly administration of 7ustice! 1dium of this

character and te8ture presents no redeeming feature, and completely negates any pretense of passionate

commitment to the truth! +t is not a whit less than a classic e8ample of gross misconduct, gross 3iolation of thelawyers oath and gross transgression of the Canons of *egal Ethics! As such, it cannot be allowed to go

unrebu6ed! The way for the e8ertion of our disciplinary powers is thus laid clear, and the need therefor is

una3oidable!

/e must once more stress our e8plicit disclaimer of immunity from criticism! *i6e any other o3ernment entity

in a 3iable democracy, the Court is not, and should not be, abo3e criticism! But a criti4ue of the Court must be

intelligent and discriminating, fitting to its high function as the court of last resort! And more than this, 3alid and

healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to oblo4uy, and re4uires detachment and disinterestedness, real

4ualities approached only through constant stri3ing to attain them! Any criticism of the Court must, possess the

4uality of 7udiciousness and must be informed @by perspecti3e and infused by philosophy! 2

+t is not accurate to say, nor is it an obstacle to the e8ercise of our authority in 0the premises, that, as Atty! Almacen would ha3e appear, the members of the Court are the )complainants, prosecutors and 7udges) all

rolled up into one in this instance! This is an utter misapprehension, if not a total distortion, not only of the

nature of the proceeding at hand but also of our role therein!

Accent should be laid on the fact that disciplinary proceedings li6e the present are sui generis! Neither purely

ci3il nor purely criminal, this proceeding is not ( and does not in3ol3e ( a trial of an action or a suit, but is

rather an in3estigation by the Court into the conduct of its officers! < Not being intended to! inflict punishment,

it is in no sense a criminal prosecution! Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein +t

may be initiated by the Court %otu proprio! 8 Public interest is its primary ob7ecti3e, and the real 4uestion

for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the pri3ileges as such!

=ence, in the e8ercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to

account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in 3iew of preser3ing the purity of the

legal profession and the proper and honest administration of 7ustice by purging the profession of members

who by their misconduct ha3e pro3ed themsel3es no longer worthy to be entrusted with the duties and

responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney! 9 +n such posture, there can thus be no occasion to

spea6 of a complainant or a prosecutor!

.ndeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrie3ed parties! Any tirade against the Court

as a body is necessarily and ine8tricably as much so against the indi3idual members thereof! But in the

e8ercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the indi3idual

personalities of its members! Consistently with the intrinsic nature of a collegiate court, the indi3idual members

act not as such indi3iduals but! only as a duly constituted court! Their distinct indi3idualities are lost in the

ma7esty of their office!35 #o that, in a 3ery real sense, if there be any complainant in the case at bar, it can

only be the Court itself, not the indi3idual members thereof ( as well as the people themsel3es whose

rights, fortunes and properties, nay, e3en li3es, would be placed at gra3e ha"ard should the administration

of 7ustice be threatened by the retention in the Bar of men unfit to discharge the solemn responsibilities of

membership in the legal fraternity!

2inally, the power to e8clude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of the power to admit

persons to said practice! By constitutional precept, this power is 3ested e8clusi3ely in this Court! This duty it

cannot abdicate 7ust as much as it cannot unilaterally renounce 7urisdiction legally in3ested upon it! 31 #o that

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


e3en if it be conceded that the members collecti3ely are in a sense the aggrie3ed parties, that fact alone

does not and cannot dis4ualify them from the e8ercise of that power because public policy demands that

they!, acting as a Court, e8ercise the power in all cases which call for disciplinary action! The present is

such a case! +n the end, the imagined anomaly of the merger in one entity of the personalities of

complainant, prosecutor and 7udge is absolutely ine8istent!

*ast to engage our attention is the nature and e8tent of the sanctions that may be 3isited upon Atty! Almacen

for his transgressions! As mar6ed out by the Rules of Court, these may range from mere suspension to total

remo3al or disbarment! 3 The discretion to assess under the circumstances the imposable sanction is, of

course, primarily addressed to the sound discretion of the Court which, being neither arbitrary and

despotic nor moti3ated by personal animosity or pre7udice, should e3er be controlled by the imperati3e

need that the purity and independence of the Bar be scrupulously guarded and the dignity of and respect

due to the Court be "ealously maintained!

That the misconduct committed by Atty! Almacen is of considerable gra3ity cannot be o3eremphasi"ed!

=owe3er, heeding the stern in7unction that disbarment should ne3er be decreed where a lesser sanction would

accomplish the end desired, and belie3ing that it may not perhaps be futile to hope that in the sober light of

some future day, Atty! Almacen will reali"e that abrasi3e language ne3er fails to do disser3ice to an ad3ocateand that in e3ery effer3escence of candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect, it is our 3iew that

suspension will suffice under the circumstances! =is demonstrated persistence in his misconduct by neither

manifesting repentance nor offering apology therefor lea3e us no way of determining how long that suspension

should last and, accordingly, we are impelled to decree that the same should be indefinite! This, we are

empowered to do not alone because 7urisprudence grants us discretion on the matter 33 but also because,

e3en without the comforting support of precedent, it is ob3ious that if we ha3e authority to completely

e8clude a person from the practice of law, there is no reason why indefinite suspension, which is lesser in

degree and effect, can be regarded as falling outside of the compass of that authority! The merit of this

choice is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to Atty! Almacen to determine for himself how long

or how short that suspension shall last! 2or, at any time after the suspension becomes effecti3e he may

pro3e to this Court that he is once again fit to resume the practice of law!

ACC1R?+N*L, +T +# T=E #EN#E of the Court that Atty! :icente Raul Almacen be, as he is hereby,

suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to ta6e effect immediately!

*et copies of this resolution! be furnished the #ecretary of ustice, the #olicitor eneral and the Court of

Appeals for their information and guidance!

&oncepcion,. &.*., Re"es, *..., 1izon, Ma:alintal, Jaldi'ar, Sanchez, -eehan:ee, arredo and 3illa%or **.,

concur.

Fernando, *., too: no part.


SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


#&R& "o& <@59 Setember 35, 198<

"EST$E PI$IPPI"ES, I"C&, petitioner,

3s!

O"& !U#USTO S& S!"CE', MI"ISTER O $!/OR !"D EMP$OME"T an) TE U"IO" O I$IPROEMP$OEES, respondents!

"o& <8<91 Setember 35, 198<

:IM/ER$ I"DEPE"DE"T $!/OR U"IO" OR SO$ID!RIT, !CTI>ISM !"D "!TIO"!$ISM;O$!$I!,petitioner,

3s!

"!TIO"!$ $!/OR RE$!TIO"S COMMISSIO", M!"UE$ !#UI$!R, M!& ESTRE$$! !$D!S, C!PT& RE$& $!"!D!, CO$& >I>E"CIO M!"!I# an) :IM/ER$;C$!R: PI$IPPI"ES, I"C&, respondents!

R E # 1 * . T + 1 N

PER CURI!M6

?uring the period uly '@$D! $&'<, respondent in !R! No! <>D;&, .nion of 2ilipro Employees, and petitioner in

!R! No! <'<&$, -imberly +ndependent *abor .nion for #olidarity, Acti3ism and Nationalism@1lalia intensified

the intermittent pic6ets they had been conducting since une $<, $&'< in front of the Padre 2aura gate of the

#upreme Court building! They set up pic6ets 4uarters on the pa3ement in front of the #upreme Court building,

at times obstructing access to and egress from the Courts premises and offices of 7ustices, officials and

employees! They constructed pro3isional shelters along the sidewal6s, set up a 6itchen and littered the place

with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and sanitation! They wa3ed their red

streamers and placards with slogans, and too6 turns haranguing the court all day long with the use of loud

spea6ers!

These acts were done e3en after their leaders had been recei3ed by ustices Pedro *! Lap and Marcelo B!

2ernan as Chairmen of the ?i3isions where their cases are pending, and Atty! ose C! Espinas, counsel of the

.nion of 2ilipro Employees, had been called in order that the pic6ets might be informed that the demonstration

must cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the Court would not

entertain their petitions for as long as the pic6ets were maintained! Thus, on uly $D, $&'<, the Court en

banc issued a resolution gi3ing the said unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and re4uiring Messrs!

Tony A3elino! *ito Payabyab, Eugene #an Pedro, ?ante Escasura, Emil #ayao and Nelson Centeno, union

leaders of respondent .nion of 2ilipro Employees in the Nestle case and their counsel of record, Atty! ose C!

Espinas0 and Messrs! Ernesto 2acundo, 2austo apu", r! and Antonio on"ales, union leaders of petitioner

-imberly +ndependent *abor .nion for #olidarity, Acti3ism and Nationalism@1lalia in the -imberly case to

appear before the Court on uly $%, $&'< at $D59D A!M! and then and there to #=1/ CA.#E why they should

not be held in contempt of court! Atty! ose C! Espinas was further re4uired to #=1/ CA.#E why he should

not be administrati3ely dealt with!

1n the appointed date and time, the abo3e@named indi3iduals appeared before the Court, represented by Atty!

ose C! Espinas, in the absence of Atty! Potenciano 2lores, counsel of record of petitioner in !R! No! <'<&$,

who was still recuperating from an operation!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Atty! Espinas, for himself and in behalf of the union leaders concerned, apologi"ed to the Court for the abo3e@

described acts, together with an assurance that they will not be repeated! =e li6ewise manifested to the Court

that he had e8perienced to the pic6eters why their actions were wrong and that the cited persons were willing

to suffer such penalty as may be warranted under the circumstances! 1 =e, howe3er, prayed for the Courts leniency

considering that the pic6et was actually spearheaded by the leaders of the )Pag6a6aisa ng Mangagawa sa Timog -atagalogan)

PAMANT+-, an unregistered loose alliance of about se3enty@fi3e <> unions in the #outhern Tagalog area, and not by either the .nion of

2ilipro Employees or the -imberly +ndependent *abor .nion!

Atty! Espinas further stated that he had e8plained to the pic6eters that any delay in the resolution of their cases

is usually for causes beyond the control of the Court and that the #upreme Court has always remained

steadfast in its role as the guardian of the Constitution!

To confirm for the record that the person cited for contempt fully understood the reason for the citation and that

they wig abide by their promise that said incident will not be repeated, the Court re4uired the respondents to

submit a written manifestation to this effect, which respondents complied with on uly $<, $&'<!

/e accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition of the sanction

warranted by the contemptuous acts described earlier! The liberal stance ta6en by this Court in these cases as

well as in the earlier case of A>S/P>44PP4ES EMP+KEES ;4+ 's. A-4+A A+R REA-4+S

&+MM4SS4+, et al., !R! No! <9<;$, March 9D, $&'<, should not, howe3er, be considered in any other light

than an ac6nowledgment of the euphoria apparently resulting from the redisco3ery of a long@repressed

freedom! The Court 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! rie3ances, if any, must be 3entilated through the proper channels, i!e!, through appropriate petitions,

motions or other pleadings in 6eeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of 7ustice

entitled to )proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference

obstructi3e of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of 7ustice!) 3

The right of petition is conceded to be an inherent right of the citi"en under all free go3ernments! =owe3er,

such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has ne3er been in3o6ed to shatter the standards of propriety

entertained for the conduct of courts! 2or )it is a traditional con3iction of ci3ili"ed society e3erywhere that courts

and 7uries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from e3ery e8traneous influence0 that

facts should be decided upon e3idence produced in court0 and that the determination of such facts should be

uninfluenced by bias, pre7udice or sympathies!) 4

Moreo3er, )parties ha3e a constitutional right to ha3e their causes tried fairly in court by an impartial tribunal,

uninfluenced by publication or public clamor! E3ery citi"en has a profound personal interest in the enforcement

of the fundamental right to ha3e 7ustice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law free

from outside coercion or interference!) @ The aforecited acts of the respondents are therefore not only an

affront to the dignity of this Court, but e4uality a 3iolation of the abo3e@stated right of the ad3erse parties

and the citi"enry at large!

/e reali"e that the indi3iduals herein cited who are non@lawyers are not 6nowledgeable in her intricacies ofsubstanti3e and ad7ecti3e laws! They are not aware that e3en as the rights of free speech and of assembly are

protected by the Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of 7ustice through the e8ercise of

either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit of constitutional protection, nor did they

reali"e that any such efforts to influence the course of 7ustice constitutes contempt of court! 2 The duty and

responsibility of ad3ising them, therefore, rest primarily and hea3ily upon the shoulders of their counsel of

record! Atty! ose C! Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court, did his best to demonstrate to

the pic6ets the untenability of their acts and posture! *et this incident therefore ser3e 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

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


on matters of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of 7ustice, and to labor leaders of the importance

of a continuing educational program for their members!

/=ERE21RE, the contempt charges against herein respondents are ?+#M+##E?! =enceforth, no

demonstrations or pic6ets intended to pressure or influence courts of 7ustice into acting one way or the other on

pending cases shall be allowed in the 3icinity andJor within the premises of any and all courts!

#1 1R?ERE?!

-eehan:ee, &.*., Kap, Fernan, ar'asa, Melencio>errera, <utierrez, *r., &ruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, idin,

Sar%iento and &ortes, **., concur.

<anca"co, *., is on lea'e

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

#EC1N? ?+:+#+1N

!&M& "o& 1<29 %ne 8, 199

CES!R $& $!"TORI!, complainant,

3s!

!TT& IRI"EO $& /U"I, respondent!

PER CURI!M6

This is an administrati3e complaint filed by Cesar *! *antoria, see6ing disciplinary action against respondent

+rineo *! Bunyi, member of the Philippine Bar, on the ground that respondent Bunyi allegedly committed acts of

)graft and corruption, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a member of the +ntegrated Bar of the

Philippines, and corruption of the 7udge and bribery), in connection with respondents handling of Ci3il Case

Nos! '$, '9 and '' then pending before the Municipal Court of E8peran"a, Agusan del #ur, presided o3er by

Municipal udge :icente alicia 1 in which respondent Bunyi was the counsel of one of the parties, namely,

Mrs! Constancia Mascarinas!

Respondent Bunyi alleged that Mrs! Constancia M! Mascarinas of Manila was the owner of d farm located in

Esperan"a, Agusan del #ur, and that herein complainant *antoria was the manager and super3isor of said

farm, recei3ing as such a monthly allowance! +t appears that the complaint in Ci3il Case Nos! '$, '9 and

'' sought to e7ect the s4uatters from the aforementioned farm! 3 These cases were assigned to the

Municipal Court of Esperan"a, Agusan del Bur, the acting municipal 7udge of which was the =onorable

:icente alicia who was at the same time the regular 7udge of the municipal court of Bayugan, Agusan

del #ur! 4 The defendants in the mentioned ci3il cases were, in due course, declared in default!

+n relation to the same three 9 ci3il cases, the records of the present case show that complainant *antoria

wrote a letter to respondent Bunyi, dated ;9 April $&<%, which reads as follows5

B

;9

Atty! +reneo Bunye

&;' Ri"al A3enue

#anta Cru", Manila

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


?ear Atty! Bunye5

888 888 888

.pon informing him of your willingness to prepare the corresponding 7udgements sic on the

9 defaulted cases he said he has no ob7ection in fact he is happy and recommended that you

mail the said decisions in due time thru me to be deli3ered to him!

888 888 888

+ will communicate with you from time to time for any future de3elopment!

My best regards to you and family and to Mrs! Constancia Mascarinas and

all!

:ery

truly

yours,

#?!

CE#AR

*

*ANT1

R+A

Ma7or

+nf PC

ret

E8ecuti3

e

?irector@

1n D$ une $&<%, respondent Bunyi wrote to the complainant regarding the said three 9 cases, in this wise5

u

?ear Ma7or *antoria,

At last, + may say that + ha3e tried my best to respond to the call in your se3eral letters

recei3ed, which is about the preparation of the three 9 ?ecisions awaited by udge alicia!

The delay is that + ha3e been too much occupied with my cases and other professional

commitments here in Manila and nearby pro3inces! Not only to Mrs! Mascarinas + would say

that + am so sorry but also to you! Mrs! Mascarinas has been reminding me but + always find

myself at a loss to prepare these ?ecisions at an early date sa sic possible! #o also with my

calendar as to the dates for the ne8t hearing of the remaining cases o3er there!

=erewith now, you will find enclosed the three 9 ?ecisions against the 9 defaulted

defendants! + am not sure if they will suit to satisfy udge alicia to sign them at once!

=owe3er, it is my re4uest to udge alicia, thru your 6ind mediation, that if the preparation of

these ?ecisions do not suit his consideration, then + am ready and willing to accept his

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


suggestions or correction to charge or modify them for the better! And to this effect, 6indly

relay at once what he is going to say or thin6s if he signs them readily and please re4uest for

each copy for our hold!

888 888 888

Please e8cuse this delay, and than6s for your 6ind assistance in attending to our cases there!

Regards to you and family and prayer for your more 3igor and success!

Brotherly

yours,

#?!

+R+NE1

*!

B.NL+2

Counse

+t also appears that respondent Bunyi wrote an earlier letter to complainant *antoria, dated D% March $&<%, the

contents of which read as follows5

&;'

Ri"al

A3e!,

#ta!

Cru",

Manila

March %

$&<%

?ear Ma7or *antoria,

This is an additional re4uest, strictly personal and confidential! +nside the en3elope addressed

to udge :icente C! alicia, are the ?ecisions and 1rders, which he told me to prepare and

he is going to sign them! +f you please, deli3er the en3elope to him as if you ha3e no

6nowledge and information and that you ha3e not opened it! .nless, of course, if the

information comes from him! But, you can in4uire from him if there is a need to wait from his

words about them, or copies to be furnished me, after he signs them, it could be made thru

you personally, to e8pedite recei3ing those copies for our hold! According to him, this

en3elope could be deli3ered to him at his residence at No! 9%> M! Calo #t!, Butuan City,

during wee6 end! or, at Bayugan if you happen to go there, if he is not in Butuan City!

Than6ing Lou for your 6ind attention and fa3or!

Truly

yours,

#?!

*!

B.NL+

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


Three years after, that is, on $$ April $&<<, complainant filed with this Court the present administrati3e case

against respondent Bunyi, predicated mainly on the abo3e@4uoted three 9 letters dated D% March, ;9 April and

D$ une, $&<%! Complainant contends that respondent won the said three 9 cases because to respondent

was the one who unethically prepared the decisions rendered therein, and that the preparation by respondent

of said decisions warranted disciplinary action against him!

By way of answer to the complaint, respondent, in a motion to dismiss 8 the administrati3e complaint, admitted the

e8istence of the letter of D$ une $&<%, but e8plained the contents thereof as follows5

888 888 888

b +n the second place, the said letter of une $, $&<%, is self@e8planatory and spea6s for itself,

that if e3er the same was written by the Respondent, it was due to the insistence of the

Complainant thru his se3eral letters recei3ed, that the decisions in 4uestion be drafted or

prepared for udge alicia, who considered such preparation as a big help to him, because

he was at that time holding two ; salas ( one as being the regular Municipal udge of

Bayugan and the other, as the acting udge of Esperan"a, both of Agusan del #ur, with many

pending cases and it was to the benefit of the Complainant that the early disposition of the

cases in3ol3ed would not suffer inconsiderable delay! But, the intention to draft or prepare thedecisions in 4uestion was ne3er spawned by the Respondent! +nstead, it came from the

under@standing between the udge and the complainant who, from his se3eral letters, had

demonstrated so much interest to e7ect at once the s4uatters from the farm he was entrusted

to manage! 2urthermore, the Complainants conclusion that the said decisions were lutong

%acao is purely non@sense as it is without any factual or legal basis! =e himself 6new that

udge alicia as6ed for help in the drafting of said decisions as at any rate they were

7udgments by default, the defendants lost their standing in court when they were declared in

default for failure to file their answers and to appear at the place and time set for hearing

thereof #ee first paragraph, letter of une $, $&<%

c Thirdly, in the same letter, the decisions as prepared were in the form of drafts, as in fact,

the letter mentioned sub7ect to suggestion or correction to change or modify for the better byudge alicia #econd paragraph, 4bid 0

d 2ourthly, in the some letter, Responding sic e3en apologi"ed for the delay in sending the

same to the Complainant and e8pressed his gratitude for his assistance in attending to the

cases in3ol3ed *ast paragraph, 4bid !

+n its resolution dated ;' No3ember $&<<, this Court referred the case to the #olicitor eneral for in3estigation,

report and recommendation! 9 1n ;$ uly $&'D, the #olicitor eneral submitted his report to the Court, with

the following a3erments, to wit5 $ that the case was set for hearing on April $;, #eptember ;&, and

?ecember $', $&<', but in all said scheduled hearings only respondent Bunyi appeared0 ; that in the

hearing of $ anuary $&<&, both respondent and complainant appeared0 9 that at the same hearing, the

#olicitor eneral reported the following de3elopment (

Atty! Mercado submitted a letter of complainant dated anuary $, $&<& sworn to before the

in3estigating #olicitor, praying that the co%plaint be considered !ithdra!n, dropped or

dis%issed on the ground that complainant )could hardly substantiate) his charges and that he

is )no longer interested to prosecute) the same! 2or his part, respondent manifested that he

has no ob7ection to the withdrawal of the complaint against him! At the same time, he

presented complainant *antoria as a witness are elicited testimony to the effect that

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


complainant no longer has in his possession the original of the letters attached to his basic

complaint, and hence, he was not prepared to pro3e his charges! 15 emphasis supplied

+n his aforesaid report, the #olicitor eneral found as follows5 a that the letters of respondent Bunyi dated %,

March and $ une $&<%, addressed to complainant, showed that respondent had indeed prepared the draft of

the decisions in Ci3il Case Nos! '$, '9 and '' of the Municipal Court of Esperan"a, Agusan del #ur, which he

submitted to udge :icente alicia thru the complainant0 b that those letters indicated that respondent had

pre3ious communications with udge alicia regarding the preparation of the decisions0 c that the testimony of

complainant to the effect that he had lost the original of said letters, and complainants withdrawal of the

complaint in the case at bar are of no moment, as respondent Bunyi, and his motion to dismiss filed with the

#upreme Court, admitted that he prepared the draft of the decisions in the said ci3il cases, and be affirmed the

e8istence of the letters!

=ence, in his report, the #olicitor eneral found that respondent is guilty of highly unethical and unprofessional

conduct for failure to perform his duty, as an officer of the court, to help promote the independence of the

7udiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence 7udicial determination of a litigation in which

he is counsel! 11 The #olicitor eneral recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of

law for a period of one $ year! =e filed with the Court the corresponding complaint against respondent!

+n his answer 1 to the complaint filed by the #olicitor eneral, respondent manifested that in the future he

would be more careful in obser3ing his duties as a lawyer, and in upholding the pro3isions of the canons

of professional ethics!

1n $D ?ecember $&'D, the date set by this Court for the hearing of this case, the hearing was postponed until

further notice! 1n & March $&'$, respondent filed a manifestation 13 alleging that no hearing was as yet set in

the case since the last setting on $D ?ecember $&'D, and he re4uested that the ne8t hearing be not set

until after si8 months when be e8pected to return from the .nited #tates of America where he would

3isit his children and at the same time ha3e a medical chec6@up!

1n ;' 1ctober $&'$, the date set by this Court for bearing in this case, respondent Bunyi and the #olicitoreneral appeared, and respondent was directed to submit his memorandum! Respondent Bunyi filed his

memorandum on $ No3ember $&'$! +n said memorandum, 14 respondent submitted that although he

prepared the draft of the decisions in the ci3il cases, he did not offer udge alicia any gift or

consideration to influence the udge in allowing him to prepare the draft decisions! 1@ =e also offered his

apology to the Court for all the improprieties which may ha3e resulted from his preparation of the draft

decisions!

/e agree with the obser3ation of the #olicitor eneral that the determination of the merits of the instant case

should proceed notwithstanding complainants withdrawal of his complaint in the case, the respondent himself

ha3ing admitted that the letters in 4uestion truly e8ist, and that he e3en as6ed for an apology from the Court, for

whate3er effects such letters may ha3e had on his duty as a lawyer!

/ith the admission by respondent of the e8istence of the letters upon which the present administrati3e

complaint is based, the remaining issue to be resol3ed is the effect of the acts complained of on respondents

duty both as a lawyer and an officer of the Court!

/e find merit in the recommendation of the #olicitor eneral that respondent, by way of disciplinary action,

deser3es suspension from the practice of law!

7/21/2019 cases 22-36


The sub7ect letters indeed indicate that respondent had pre3ious communication with udge alicia regarding

the preparation of the draft decisions in Ci3il Case Nos! '$, '9, and '', and which he in fact prepared! Although

nothing in the records would show that respondent got the trial court 7udges consent to the said preparation for

a fa3or or consideration, the acts of respondent ne3ertheless amount to conduct unbecoming of a lawyer and

an officer of the Court!

Clearly, respondent 3iolated Canon No! 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which were enforced at thetime respondent committed the acts admitted by him, which pro3ides as follows5

9! Attempts to e8ert personal influence on the court

Mar6ed attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a 7udge, uncalled for by the

personal relations of the parties, sub7ect both the 7udge and the lawyer to misconstructions of

moti3e and should be a3oided! A lawyer should not communicate or argue pri3ately with the

7udge as to the merits of a pending cause and deser3es rebu6e and denunciation for any

de3ice or attempt to gain from a 7udge special personal consideration or fa3or! A self@

respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty, without denial or diminution of

the courtesy and respect due the 7udges station, is the only proper foundation for cordial

personal and official relations between bench and bar!

+n the new Code of Professional Responsibility 12 a lawyers attempt to influence the court is rebu6ed, as

shown in Canon No! $9 and Rule $9!D$, which read5

CAN1N $9 ( A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any

impropriety which tends to influence, or gi3es the appearance of influencing the court!

Rule $9!D$ ( A lawyer shall not e8tend e8traordinary attention or hospitality to, nor see6

opportunity for, culti3ating familiarity with 7udges!

Date post:	04-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jose-rafael-anonuevo-bartolome
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

cases 22-36

Documents