Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

LEGAL ETHICS

the petitioner as anomalous and unbecoming and

CANON 8:

in charging petitioner of obtaining his fee through


maneuvers of documents of guardian-petitioner if
any one is to blame for the language used by the
petitioner, it is the

1. FERNANDEZ V HON. BELLO, 197 PHILS 1140


Keyword: refund of 200, respondent allegation, below standard of a lawyer)

FACTS:
Atty. Manuel Fernandez filed a motion to annul the 2
orders dated June 16 and 23 1958
1st order reprimand petitioner for his improper conduct as
counsel in special proceedings guardianship of minor Federico and
Pedro both surnamed pereyras, timotea pereyras, petitioner-guardian
and order him to return to the guardian within 15 days the sum of
P200 collected by him.
2nd order denies petioners motion for reconsideration and
warns him not to use improper terms in his pleadings
The circumstances leading to the issuance of the above orders based
on the lower court findings, petitioner that is guilty of contempt of
court on 2 grounds:
1st he instituted guardianship proceedings for the sole
purpose of facilitating payment to him of the debts of the
wards. Before the guardianship proceedings were instituted,
the wards were indebted in the sum of 200 and the only way
to settle it is by selling the nipa land. The petitioner believed
that it was the proper remedy.
2nd the lower court also reprimand and order for the refund
of 200 and the closing of the guardianship proceedings.
Respondent judge justified his order for the return of 200 on
the ground that petitioner is below average standard of a
lawyer.

Respondent also desires that portions of petitioners


motion for reconsideration be stricken out for
imploring strong language.
ISSUE: WON, portion of petitioners motion for
reconsideration be stricken out for imploring strong
language?
HELD: NO, the court believe the said language
must have been impelled by the same language
used by the judge below in characterizing the act of

judge himself who has made insulting remarks in his


orders, which must have provoked the petitioner,
and the judge below has nothing to blame but
himself. If a judge desires not to be insulted he
should start using temperate language himself:
HE WHO SOWS THE WIND WILL REAP A
STORM.
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH
COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS
PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING
TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

2. RHEEM OF THE PHILS V FERRER ( in re:


proceedings against Enrile), 205 SCRA 441
Facts:
The proceeding for certiorari and contempt is an
offshoot of the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)
denial of motion to dismiss the respondents
complaint.
The following was filed by the counsel (Atty. Jose S.
Armonio) for the petitioner:
One pitfall into which this Honorable Court has repeatedly
fallen whenever the question as to whether or not a particular
subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court of

Industrial Relations is the tendency of this Honorable Court to


rely upon its own pronouncement without due regard to the
statutes which delineate the jurisdiction of the industrial
court. Quite often, it is overlooked that no court, not even this
Honorable Court, is empowered to expand or contract through
its decision the scope of its jurisdictional authority as
conferred by law. This error is manifested by the decisions of
this Honorable Court citing earlier rulings but without making
any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute
governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations.
This manifestation appears in this Honorable Court's decision
in the instant case. As a result, the errors committed in earlier
cases dealing with the jurisdiction of the industrial court are
perpetuated in subsequent cases involving the same issue . . .
.

The Court ordered counsel to show cause why


he should not be held in contempt.

CIR. The statements made by counsel detract


much from the dignity and respect of the SC.
Atty. Armonio was admonished by the SC.
Ratio: disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive
personalities, unfounded accusations or intemperate words
tending to obstruct, embarrass or influence the court
administering justice or to bring it into disrepute have no place
in a pleading. Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the
disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot escape
responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any
reader must have understood them as meaning at best. It
extenuates liability.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Armonios


statements violated the duty of respect to
courts.

3. ENRIQUE
GONZALEZ,

Held: YES, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional


Responsibility states that, it is the duty of the
lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude, not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office but
for
the
maintenance
of
its
supreme
importance. Worth remembering is the
attorneys duty to the courts can only be
maintained by rendering no service involving
disrespect to the judicial office which he is
bound to uphold.

FACTS: The following are the subjects of this Resolution


filed by the Petitioner: a Motion, dated 9 February 1988,
to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. Salivary
against public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly
Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in connection with G.R.
Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578. And a Resolution of
this Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon.
Raul Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be
punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative
sanctions for making certain public statements.

In the case at bar, the Court felt that Atty.


Armonios language makes a sweeping charge
that the decisions of the SC blindly adhere to
earlier rulings without making any reference
and analysis of the pertinent statutes of the

A.

ZALDIVAR vs.
20
SCRA

RAUL

M.
316

The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent


Gonzalez in:

(1) Having caused the filing of the information against


petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the
Sandiganbayan; and
(2) Issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements
to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No.
80578. In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his
Motion a photocopy of a news article which appeared in

the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily


Globe."

ISSUE: WON, lawyers are entitled to the same


degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the
Court?
RULING: No, The Court begins by referring to the

authority to discipline officers of the court and members


of the Bar. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from
the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission
to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to
regulate the practice itself of law. Moreover, the Supreme
Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to
control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of
ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all
other persons connected in any manner with a case
before
the
Court.
Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest
in the capacity of the Court effectively to prevent and
control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers
who are, first and foremost, indispensable participants in
the task of rendering justice to every man. Some courts
have held, persuasively it appears to us, and that a
lawyer's right of free expression may have to be more
limited than that of a layman. While the Court may allow
criticism it has In Re: Almacen

held: Intemperate and unfair criticism is a


gross violation of the duty of respect to
courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a
lawyer to disciplinary action. The lawyer's duty
to render respectful subordination to the
courts
is
essential
to
the
orderly
administration of justice. Hence, in the
assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even

those gifted with superior intellect


enjoined to rein up their tempers

are

*** criticism of courts must not spill over the


walls of decency and propriety.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi