Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No.
102781) aware that even as the rights of free speech and of assembly are protected by the
In fine, where a criminal complaint against a Judge or other court employee arises
from their administrative duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said
complaint and refer the same to this Court for determination whether said Judge or
court employee had acted within the scope of their administrative duties.
PNB vs. Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil., 337, October 21, 1932
Attorney and Client; Attorney as Witness.Although the law does not forbid an
attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a cause, the courts prefer
that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should
withdraw from the active management of the case. (Malcolm: Legal Ethics, p. 148.)
Nestl Philippines, Inc. vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542 , September 30, 1987
Supreme Court cannot be pressured to act one way or the other in any case pending
before it; Apologies of respondents acceptedWe accept the apologies offered by
the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition of the sanction warranted by
the contemptuous acts described earlier. The Court will not hesitate in future similar
situations to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who
attempt to pressure the Court into acting one way or the other in any case pending
before it. Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels, i.e.,
through appropriate petitions, motions or other pleadings in keeping with the respect
due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to "proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference
obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice."
Courts and juries immune from every extraneous influence. The right of petition is
conceded to be an inherent right of the citizen under all free governments. However,
such right, natural and inherent though it may be, has never been invoked to shatter
the standards of propriety entertained for the conduct of courts. For "it is a traditional
conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of
issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts
should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of
such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.''
Abuse of rights of free speech and of assembly not within the ambit of constitutional
protection; Counsel of record and all members of the legal profession are reminded
to apprise their clients on matters of docorum and proper attitude toward courts of
justiceWe realize that the individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not
knowledgeable in the intricacies of substantive and adjective laws. They are not
Constitution, any attempt to pressure or influence courts of justice through the
exercise of either right amounts to an abuse thereof, is no longer within the ambit of
constitutional protection, nor did they realize that any such efforts to influence the
course of justice constitutes contempt of court. The duty and responsibility of
advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their
counsel of record. Atty. Jose C. Espinas, when his attention was called by this Court,
did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the untenability of their acts and posture.
Let this incident therefore serve as a reminder to all members of the legal profession
that it is their duty as officers of the court to properly apprise their clients on matters
of decorum and proper attitude toward courts of justice and to labor leaders of the
importance of a continuing educational program f or their members. [Nestl
Philippines, Inc. vs. Sanchez, 154 SCRA 542(1987)]
Foodsphere, Inc. vs. Mauricio, Jr., 593 SCRA 367 , July 22, 2009
Legal Ethics; Attorneys; It is necessary for every lawyer to act and comport himself
in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession,
which confidence may be eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a
member of the bar.The Court, once again, takes this occasion to emphasize the
necessity for every lawyer to act and comport himself in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession, which confidence may be
eroded by the irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the bar. By the
above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, as the IBP found, he engaged in
deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking advantage of the complaint against CDO to
advance his interestto obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek sponsorships
and advertisements for the tabloids and his television program.
Same; Same; A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.The
respondent lawyer also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates: A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party. For despite the pendency of the civil case against him and the issuance of a
status quo order restraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and broadcasting
of any matter relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent continued with his
attacks against complainant and its products. At the same time, respondent violated
Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers to
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and
legal processes. For he defied said status quo order, despite his (respondents) oath
as a member of the legal profession to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities.
Same; Same; While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage,
such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language
language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.Respondent violated
Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which mandate,
viz.: CANON8A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
opposing counsel. Rule8.01A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper,by using intemperate
language. Apropos is the following reminder in Saberon v. Larong, 551 SCRA 359
(2008): To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members
of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of
their clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. On many occasions,
the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality
and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness,
unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with
the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be
dignified.
Maglasang vs. People, 190 SCRA 306 , October 04, 1990
Lawyers; Legal Ethics; A lawyer's duty is not to his client but to the administration
of justice; to that end, his client's success is wholly subordinate; and his conduct
ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of law and ethics.It is clear
that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Atty. Castellano irresponsibly
ascribed to the members of the Court's Second Division, but simply because of his
inexcusable negligence and incompetence. Atty. Castellano, however, seeks to pass
on the blame for his deficiencies to the Court, in the hope of salvaging his reputation
before his client. Unfortunately, the means by which Atty. Castellano hoped to pass
the buck so to speak, are grossly improper. 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. Time and again we have emphasized that a "lawyer's duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice; to that end, his client's success is
wholly subordinate; and his conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of law and ethics." Thus, "while a lawyer must advocate his client's cause
in utmost earnest and with the maximum skill he can marshal, he is not at liberty to
resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo."
Same; Same; Same; Courts; Contempt of Court; Criticisms towards the Court should
be bona fide, and should not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.To be
sure, the Court does not pretend to be immune from criticisms. After all, it is through
the criticism of its actions that the Court, composed of fallible mortals, hopes to
correct whatever mistake it may have unwittingly committed. But then again, "[i]t is
the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not
spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair
criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on
the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect
to courts."
Same; Same; Same; Same; Supreme Court; The Supreme Court is supremeno
other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them "unjust",
not even the President of the Philippines.We further note that in filing the
"complaint" against the justices of the Court's Second Division, even the most basic
tenet of our government systemthe separation of powers between the judiciary, the
executive, and the legislative brancheshas been lost on Atty. Castellano. We
therefore take this occasion to once again remind all and sundry that "the Supreme
Court is supremethe third great department of government entrusted exclusively
with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and
private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them
'unjust.'" Consequently, and owing to the foregoing, not even the President of the
Philippines as Chief Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court's acts.
[Maglasang vs. People, 190 SCRA 306(1990)]