12. disrespectful as well as insolent language.

For this reason, the Court

EMILIA E. ANDRES vs. STANLEY R. CABRERA resolved to require Cabrera to show cause why he should not be cited
G.R. No. 585 December 14, 1979 and punished for contempt of court. Cabrera then answered the
FACTS: citation for contempt against him by apologizing to the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cabrera should not be cited and punished for
Respondent Stanley R. Cabrera was a successful Bar examinee
in 1977 while Petitioner Atty. Emilia E. Andres was a legal officer in the contempt of court.
Ministry of Labor, and the investigator who recommended the
dismissal of the case filed by Cabrera’s mother. RULING:

Upon Atty. Andres’ recommendation, the ministry of labor Yes, Cabrera should be cited and punished for contempt of
court.
dismissed the case filed by Cabrera’s mother. Such dismissal prompted
Cabrera to file, against Atty. Andres, criminal charges of infidelity in
Although respondent is not yet admitted to the legal profession
the custody of documents, falsification of public documents, and
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Atty. Andres then but now stands at the threshold thereof, having already passed the
Bar examinations, it is as much his duty as every attorney-at-law
filed a petition for the denial of Cabrera’s admission as member of the
Bar on the ground of lack of good moral character as shown by his already admitted to the practice of law to observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Sec. 20, (b),
propensity in using vile, uncouth, and in civil language to the extent of
being reprehensively malicious and criminally libelous and likewise, for Rule 138, Rules of Court) and "to abstain from all offensive personality
and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party
his proclivity in filing baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal
cases. or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged" (Sec. 20, (f), Rule 138).
As such, the Court required Cabrera to file an answer to why he
According to the Canons of Professional Ethics, it is the duty of
should not be disqualified and ordered, at the same time, that his
the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude not for
oath-taking be held in abeyance. In his answer, Cabrera admits the
the sake of the temporary incumbent of the Judicial office, but for the
filing of criminal cases against Atty. Andres but denied that his
maintenance of its supreme importance. Judges, not being wholly free
language was vile, uncouth, and uncivil due to the simple reason that
to defend themselves, are particularly entitled to receive the support
the same is the truth and was made with good intentions and
of the Bar against unjust criticism and clamor. This duty is likewise
justifiable motives. Cabrera’s Answer, however, repeats the use of
incumbent upon one aspiring to be a lawyer such as the respondent for
unfit language by calling Atty. Andres a “moron”, among others.
the attorney's oath solemnly enjoins him to "conduct myself as a
lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all
Because of Cabrera’s persistence of using abusive and
good fidelity as well to the Courts as to my client”.
vituperative language, the Court resolved to defer his oath-taking
pending showing that he has amended his ways and has conformed to
Because of all of these, Cabrera is, therefore, guilty of contempt
the use of polite, courteous and civil language. His subsequent
for his improper conduct in the use of highly disrespectful, insolent
motions, however, show that Cabrera still persists in using unfit, highly
language in which he has tended to degrade the administration of
justice, and has disparaged the dignity and brought to disrepute the
integrity and authority of the Court.