SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD, ET AL.

, petitioners, vs. HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL ETC., ET

AL., respondents, In Re: Contempt Proceedings Against Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran
Sotto, Graciano C. Regala and Associates, Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F. Meads.

G.R. No. L-27072, January 9, 1970

Facts:

These are two contempt cases against Attorneys Vicente L. Santiago, Jose Beltran Sotto,
Graciano C. Regala and Associates, Erlito R. Uy, Juanito M. Caling; and Morton F. Meads.

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 favoritism
and partisanship of the members of the Court. 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.

The second contempt case is when the 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.

Ruling:

In the both contempt cases, YES.

In the first contempt case, they should be cited in contempt. 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 RoC 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 an atmosphere of distrust.

Furthermore, in the second contempt case, they are likewise guilty of contempt. Even if the idea
of the language used in the 4th MR came from Meads, both Santiago and Caling should've adhered to
Canon 16 wherein "a lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing
those things which a lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct
towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing, the
lawyer should terminate their relation". Santiago is also liable here since Caling's representation didn't
divest him of his capacity as counsel for MacArthur.