TACARDON v.

ANG (2005)
En Banc Resolution | Contempt

Summary: SC issued minute resolution denying due course to the petition of Atty. Cruz’s
clients. Atty. Cruz, using harsh and insinuating words in his Manifestations and pleadings,
demanded that the names of Justices who took part in the deliberation of his petition be
revealed. Court deemed such as direct contempt of court and professional misconduct.
Atty. Cruz was suspended indefinitely.
Doctrines
 SC is not duty bound to render signed Decisions all the time. It has ample
discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis
is given, depending on its evaluation of the case.
 Contemptuous statements made in the pleadings filed with the court constitute
direct contempt because it is equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the
presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
Facts
 Subsequent to SC’s Resolutions denying his petition for review on certiorari and
MR, Atty. Francisco B. Cruz, counsel for petitioners, filed manifestations
containing improvident and disrespectful language. He doubts the authenticity of
the Minute Resolutions as they do not bear the signatures of Justices concerned.
o In his pleading "A Practicing Lawyer's Plaint," Atty. Cruz alleged that SC
has "desecrated legal and jurisprudential norms." He concluded that this
Court "has become unpredictable" and thus, it is time for him "to consider
retiring from the practice of law.”
 In another Resolution, the SC, in order to enlighten him, called his attention to
Borromeo vs. CA:
o where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual
in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial
evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws,
a d where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to
forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the
rules, minute resolutions are proper.
 Atty. Cruz still demanded that the names of the Justices who took part in the
deliberation of his petition be revealed. He even insinuated that the withholding of
their names shows that "there is a lot of corruption going around”.

Issues, Held
WON SC’s issuance of Minute Resolutions without the signatures of the Justices who
deliberated on the case, proper – YES
  In Re: Wenceslao Laureta: SC is not duty bound to render signed Decisions all the
time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions,
provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of the case.
 Court promulgates Minute Resolutions only after the Justices have deliberated on
the cases involved.
WON Atty. Cruz should be held accountable – YES
 Atty. Cruz has repeatedly insulted and threatened SC in the most loutish and
insolent manner. He broadly hinted that, "something is indeed amiss" in the
issuance of the subject Minute Resolutions and that the non-disclosure of the
names of the Justices was due to some irregularities. He even challenged the
Court to censure him if there is no basis for his suspicions.
 Atty. Cruz's statements constitute direct contempt of court.
o Ante vs. Pascua: contemptuous statements made in the pleadings filed with
the court constitute direct contempt because it is equivalent to a
misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to
interrupt the administration of justice.
 Atty. Cruz is also guilty of professional misconduct.
o Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: "A lawyer shall
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers x
x x"
o Rule 11.03: "A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts."
 While criticism of judicial conduct is not forbidden and zeal in advocacy is in fact
encouraged, every lawyer must always act within the limits of propriety and good
taste and with deference to the courts before which he pleads.

Atty. Cruz is guilty both of direct contempt of court and gross misconduct. He is
SUSPENDED as a member of the Bar and is prohibited from engaging in the
practice of law until otherwise ordered by SC.