CASES:

G.R. No. L-27072   July 31, 1968

SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD and the EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY Petitioners, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Manila
and MAC-ARTHUR INTERNATIONAL MINERALS CO., Respondents.

FACTS:
First Contempt Case. The Supreme Court rendered a decision against
MacArthur International Minerals Corp and in their third Motion for
Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago and John Beltran Sotto made use of
language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court like "it seems many
of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of God", "corrupt in
its face" and insinuating favouritism and partisanship of the members of the Court,
notable Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro due to alleged interest in the
case (Castro's brother works for one of the parties). Santiago and Castro wanted for
the two justices to inhibit themselves in the MR. The Court demanded for Santiago
and Sotto to "show cause" why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for the said
statements. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently
included in the copy sent to the Court, and was just intended to be in the MR's rough
draft.

Second Contempt Case. Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for
reconsideration, this time with Atty. Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again
contained language which the Court found disrespectful. The MR assailed the
decision penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was
written and included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World Court and
allegations of rise of graft and corruption in the judiciary. The Court demanded
Caling to also "show cause" and he said that it the motion was already prepared by
Santiago when he took the case as was verified by Morton Meads, an employee from
MacArthur.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the lawyers should be cited in contempt?

HELD:
First Contempt Case. Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto
degrades the administration of justice which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which states
that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts of justice and judicial officers but their acts resulted in the contrary and are
intended to create and atmosphere of distrust. The inadvertence of Santiago's use of
words can't be used as a shield to absolve him of any misdeeds.