Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

FACTS:

First Contempt Case. 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, notable Chief Justice Concepcion and Justice Castro due
to alleged interest in the case (Castro's brother works for one of the parties). Santiago and Castro
wanted for the two justices to inhibit themselves in the MR. The Court demanded for Santiago and Sotto
to "show cause" why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for the said statements. 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.

Second Contempt Case. 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?

HELD:

First Contempt Case. Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the administration of
justice which trangresses 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 and
atmosphere of distrust. The inadvertence of Santiago's use of words can't be used as a shield to absolve
him of any misdeeds.
Second Contempt Case. Yes. 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 of the Code of Legal Ethics 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 terminated their
relation". Santiago is also liable here since Caling's represent didn't divest him of his capacity as counsel
for MacArthur.