57) DIRECT CONTEMPT

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA.

A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005

FACTS:
 Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the Chief Justice over his
frustrations of the outcome of his cases decided by the Supreme Court.
 The letter contained derogatory and malignant remarks which are highly
insulting.
 The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda to explain, however, instead of
appearing before the court, he wrote another letter with insulting remarks
as the first one.
 The court was thus offended with his remarks.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of contempt due to the
remarks he has made in his letters addressed to the court.

HELD: Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass the

court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their employment
serves no useful purpose. On the contrary, they constitute direct contempt of
court or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the lawyer’s oath and a
transgression of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As officer of the court,
Atty. Sorreda has the duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and
to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. No less must this be
and with greater reasons in the case of the country’s highest court, the Supreme
Court, as the last bulwark of justice and democracy
Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice, to which his client’s success is wholly subordinate. His
conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.
The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified
nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members
of the legal profession is a treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it.
Hence, Atty. Sorreda has transcended the permissible bounds of fair comment
and constructive criticism to the detriment of the orderly administration of
justice. Free expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy one’s
irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this Court and
its magistrates. Thus, ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is found guilty both of contempt
of court and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to
gross misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.
 58) OBSERVING RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS

G.R. NO. L-24438

July 30, 1965
Rosauro Paragas vs. Fernando A. Cruz

Reyes, J.B.L, J.:

FACTS:

 In asking for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of his petition for

certiorari in the present case, counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Jeremias
Sebastian, used derogatory expressions against the dignity of the Court in
the language of his motion for consideration.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Sebastian is administratively liable for his

actions/language.

HELD: The expressions contained in the motion for reconsideration penned by

the counsel of the petitioner are plainly contemptuous and disrespectful and he
is hereby guilty of direct contempt of court. As remarked in People vs. Carillo:
“Counsel should conduct himself towards the judges who try his cases with that
courtesy all have a right to expect. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and
moral duty to help build an not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and
regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice. It
is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the cause and rights of his
client, should do so with all the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is
not, and never will be so, for him to exercise said right by resorting to
intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect which the dgnity of
the courts require.”
 59) OBSERVING RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
G.R. No. 42992
August 8, 1935
FELIPE SALCEDO vs. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ

FACTS: In his motion for a case, Atty. Vicente J. Francisco inserted some
phrases which in the Court’s opinion constitute contempt. The phrases are as
follows: ". . . and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe
Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls . . .. ". . .
because we should not want that some citizen, particularly some voter of the
municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he
has a right to do, the judicial outrage . . .. "and . . . we wish to state sincerely
that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands
of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of 'sakdalism'
and make the public lose confidence in the administration of justice", disclose, in
the opinion of this court, an inexcusable disrespect of the authority of the court
and an intentional contempt of its dignity, because the court is thereby charged
with no less than having proceeded in utter disregard of the laws, the rights of
the parties, and of the untoward consequences, or with having abused its power
and mocked and flouted the rights of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's client,
because the acts of outraging and mocking from which the words "outrage" and
"mockery" used therein are derived, mean exactly the same as all these,
according to the Dictionary of the Spanish Language published by the Spanish
Academy (Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 15th ed., pages 132 and 513).

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente J. Francisco was guilty of contempt.

HELD: As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, attorney Vicente J.
Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority
and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon him the high
privilege,not a right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now
is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St. Rep., 492, 669), but also
because in so doing he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the
administration of justice, and he prevents anybody from harboring and
encouraging discontent, which in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus
undermining the foundation on which rests the bulwark called judicial power to
which those who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief. The Court held that
the act committed by Atty. Vicente J. Francisco constitutes a contempt in the
face of the court (in facie curiae) and, reiterating what it said on another
occasion that the power to punish for contempt is inherent in the courts in order
that there be due administration of justice (Inre Kelly,35Phil.,944),and so that
the institution of the courts of justice may be stable and said courts may not fail
in their mission. Atty. Vicente J. Francisco is ordered to pay a fine of P200 with in
the period of ten days, and reprimanded; and it is ordered that the entire
paragraph of his motion containing the phrases which as has been stated,
constitute contempt of court be stricken from the record de oficio.
 60) NON-APPEARANCE AT HEARING

G.R. No. L-42032

January 9, 1976
Manuel de Gracia, petitioner, vs. The Warden, Makati Municipal Jail

Fernando, J.

FACTS:

 Petitioner, Manuel de Gracia, was charged with frustrated homicide which

was amended to a lesser offense of serious physical injuries.
 He pleaded guilty to the lesser offense from which he served the sentence
of four months and one day.
 After serving his sentence, his release from confinement was held by
Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado on the ground of the prosecutor that the
victim of the crime has died making the petitioner liable to homicide.
 A writ of habeas corpus was filed by the petitioner.
 On the day of the hearing, neither the petitioner nor his counsel, Salvador
N. Beltran, appeared but left a manifestation that the petitioner has
already been released rendering the present petition moot and academic.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s counsel violated his duties to the court?

HELD: Yes. There was a lapse in judicial propriety by counsel Salvador N.

Beltran who did not even take the trouble of appearing in Court on the very day
his own petition was reset for hearing, a lapse explicable, it may be assumed, by
his comparative inexperience and paucity of practice before this Tribunal. It
suffices to call his attention to such failing by way of guidance for his future
actuations as a member of the bar.
 61) LAWYER’S LANGUAGE
G.R. No. L-27072
January 9, 1970
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v Cloribel

Sanchez, J.

FACTS:
 Scattered in Atty. Santiago’s motion were other statements where he
attacked the 1968 decision of the Supreme Court, which is unfavorable to
his client, as false, erroneous, and illegal.
 Atty. Santiago sought the inhibition of two Justices: Justice Castro,
because allegedly, he is the brother of the vice president of the opposing
party. And Chief Justice Concepcion because immediately after the 1968
decision, his son was appointed to a significant position in the government,
implying that their decision was unfair and influenced.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Santiago is guilty of contempt.

HELD: Yes. A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, like the court itself, an
instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. His duty is to uphold the
dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, not to promote
distrust in the administration of justice.