Andres v.

Cabrera Facts: Stanley Cabrera herein comes from a family living in abject poverty as illegal settlers beside railroad tracks. However, in the hopes of uplifting the living conditions of his family, he studied law and became a successful bar examinee in the year 1977. Sometime therafter, his mother initiated an administrative charge against one Benjamin Perez, however, the special investigator in the case, Emilia Andres, recommended and caused the dismissal of the said case. Angered by this development, Cabrera filed a criminal charge against Andres and submitted supporting affidavits which contained vile, incivil and uncouth language (e.g. moronic statements, moronic excuse, moronic conspiracy, unparalleled stupidity and idiotic, among others). Irked by the affidavits Andres filed a petition before the court to disqualify Cabrera from admission to the bar. The court thereafter required respondent to file an answer to the petition to disqualify him and ordered that his oath-taking be held in abeyance. In his answer, he claims that his language was not vile, uncouth and icivil and was made in good intentions and justifiable motives pursuant to his sense of justice. To make things worse, he reiterated his statements, again calling Andres a moron and an idiot. He even filed repeated motions before the court addressed to then chief justice Castro for the early resolution of his case. In his motions, the phrase "avalance of sadistic resolution en banc", "the cruel and inhuman punishment". Because of these motions and reiterations, the court resolved to defer the oath-taking of respondent pending showing that he amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language. Following this, he filed a case against Andres for the court to cite him in contempt, making use of vile language again. As can be seen, Cabrera still hasnt amended his ways despite the admonition of the court. Subsequently, he filed a motion for reconsideration praying that he be allowed to take his oath. In his letter addressed to the court, he tried to show that he amended his ways but the court wasnt convinces as such apology was found to be insincere, sham and artful seeing as how he stated that he did it with utmost good faith out of frustration.

In resolving his motion, the court held that it is as much his duty as every attorney-at-law already admitted to the bar to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers and to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. This is because judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are particularly entitled to receive the support of the bar against unjust criticism and clamor. It is his duty likewise as stated in his oath that he is to "conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my client." He was found guilty of contempt sentenced to a fine of 500 or imprisonment. Motion for Reconsideration In this case, Cabrera has already paid the fine and submitted an urgent motion for admission to the bar in view of the payment and for mercy. He claims that he has amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language. He further prayed for humanitarian considerations, considering that he has 7 children, a wife, a widowed mother to support. He also wrote a letter to the Chief Justice once more reiterating his sincerest apologies and begged for mercy. His wife and mother also wrote letters to the CJ. Acting on this, the court resolved to require him to submit letters of apologies to the court and complainant, 2 certifications of good behavior and exemplary conduct from the Parish Priest and from the Barangay Captain which he resides. Thereafter, his petition to take oath shall be considered. Such was complied with by Cabrera. Hence, the court resolved that the power to admit to the bar is not an arbitrary and despotic one to be exercised at the pleasure of the court or from passion, prejudice or personal hostility. It is the duty of the court to exercise and regulate it by sound and judicial discretion. The power of contempt should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment. It must not be used to strike back at a party who has shown lesser respect to the dignity of the court. He was allowed to take the lawyer's oath.