Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

MAGSALANG vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


FACTS: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His
counsel, Atty. Castellano, filed for apetition for certiorari through registered mail. Due to noncompliance with the requirements, the court dismissed the petition and a motion for
reconsideration. Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he
accused the five justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly
rendering unjust judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for
being Marcos appointees, and robbing the Filipinopeople genuine justice and democracy. He also
said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who was impleaded in the petition and for
money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by ordinary men.
The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to show cause why
he should not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaint was constructive criticism
intended to correct in good faith the erroneous and very strict practices of the justices concerned.
He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act and that they should just answer
the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and improper conduct and ordered to pay P1,
000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months suspension.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Atty. Castellanos acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD: Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the
bounds of constructive criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client.
They castaspersion on the Courts integrity as a neutral and final arbiter of all justiciable
controversies before it.
The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not
render his negligence excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged
injustices Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members of the Court, but his inexcusable
negligence and incompetence.
As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of
the Court just to keep the confidence of his client.
Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government separation
of power - has been lost. He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass
judgment on any of the Courts acts.