In R e: D is ciplinary Action Agains t Atty.

Wences lao Laureta and

C ontempt Preoceedings Against Eva Maravilla Illustre GR No 68635 12 March 1987

Before us are 1) Atty. Wenceslao Laureta's Motion for Reconsideration of the Per Curiam Resolution
of this Court promulgated on March 12, 1987, finding him guilty of grave professional misconduct
and suspending him indefinitely from the practice of law; and 2) Eva Maravilla-Ilustre's Motion for
Reconsideration of the same Resolution holding her in contempt and ordering her to pay a fine of
P1,000.00.

Facts: Eva Maravilla-Ilustre sent letters to Justices Andres R. Narvasa, Ameurfina M.

Herrera, Isagani A. Cruz and Florentino P. Feliciano, all members of the First Division.
Ilustre  using contemptuous language claimed that members of the court rendered unjust
decision on the case GR 68635: Eva Maravilla Ilustre vs. Intermediate Appellate Court.
Ilustre claimed that the Court acted unjustly when Justice Pedro Yap failed to inhibit himself
from participating when in fact he is a law-partner of the defense counsel Atty Sedfrey
Ordonez. On 27 October 1986, the Court en banc reviewed the history of the case and
found no reason to take action, stating that Justice Yap inhibited himself from the case and
was only designated as Chairman of First Division on 14 July 1986 after the resolution of
dismissal was issued on 14 May 1986. Petitioner again addressed letters to Justices
Narvasa, Herrera and Cruz with a warning of exposing the case to another forum of justice,
to which she made true by filing an Affidavit-Complaint to Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) on 16
Decemeber 1986. Atty. Laureta himself reportedly circulated copies of the Complaint to the
press. Tanodbayan dismissed petitioner’s Complaint

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Laureta reiterates his allegations in his Answer to the show-
cause Resolution that his professional services were terminated by Ilustre after the dismissal of the
main petition by this Court; that he had nothing to do with the contemptuous letters to the individual
Justices; and that he is not Ilustre's counsel before the Tanodbayan.

Issue: WON the decision suspending Atty. Laureta must be upheld.

Decision: Eva Maravilla Ilustre is hereby held in contempt and Atty. Wenceslao Laureta is
found guilty of grave professional misconduct and is suspended from the practice of law
until further Orders.
Resolutions of the Supreme Court as a collegiate court, whether en banc or division, speak
for themselves and are entitled to full faith and credence and are beyond investigation or
inquiry under the same principle of conclusiveness of enrolled bills of the legislature. The
supremacy of the Supreme Court’s judicial power is a restatement of the fundamental
principle of separation of powers and checks and balances under a republican form of
government such that the three co-equal branches of government are each supreme and
independent within the limits of its own sphere. Neither one can interfere with the
performance of the duties of the other.

Atty. Laureta's protestations that he has done his best to protect and uphold the dignity of this Court
are belied by environmental facts and circumstances. His apologetic stance for the "adverse
publicity" generated by the filing of the charges against the Justices concerned before the
Tanodbayan rings with insincerity. The complaint was calculated precisely to serve that very
purpose. The threat to bring the case to "another forum of justice" was implemented to the fun.
Besides, he misses the heart of the matter. Exposure to the glare of publicity is an occupational
hazard. If he has been visited with disciplinary sanctions it is because by his conduct, acts and
statements, he has, overall, deliberately sought to destroy the "authenticity, integrity, and
conclusiveness of collegiate acts," to "undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of
all justifiable disputes," and to subvert public confidence in the integrity of the Courts and the
Justices concerned, and in the orderly administration of justice.

In fine, we discern nothing in Atty. Laureta's Motion for Reconsideration that would call for a
modification, much less a reversal, of our finding that he is guilty of grave professional misconduct
that renders him unfit to continue to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to an
attorney and officer of the Court.