Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

JORGE MONTECILLO and QUIRICO DEL MAR, petitioners,

vs.
FRANCISCO M. GICA, MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, JOSE N. LEUTERIO, and RAMON G. GAVIOLA, Justices of the
Court of Appeals, respondents. In Re Quirico del Mar, For Disciplinary action as member of the Philippine
Bar, respondent.
60 SCRA 234 October 21, 1974
Esguerra, J:

FACTS:
Jorge Montecillo was accused by Francisco Gica of slander. Atty. Quirico del Mar represented
Montecillo and he successfully defended Monteceillo in the lower court. Del Mar was even able to win their
counterclaim thus the lower court ordered Gica to pay Montecillo the adjudged moral damages.
Gica appealed the award of damages to the Court of Appeals where the latter court reversed the same.
Atty. Del Mar then filed a motion for reconsideration where he made a veiled threat against the Court of
Appeals judges intimating that he thinks the CA justices “knowingly rendered an unjust decision” and
“judgment has been rendered through negligence” and that the CA allowed itself to be deceived.
The CA denied the Motion For Reconsideration and it admonished Atty. Del Mar from using such tone
with the court. Del Mar then filed a second Motion For Reconsideration where he again made threats. The CA
then ordered del Mar to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt.
Thereafter, del Mar sent the three CA justices a copy of a letter which he sent to the President of the
Philippines asking the said justices to consider the CA judgment. But the CA did not reverse its judgment. Del
Mar then filed a civil case against the three justices of the CA before a Cebu lower court but the civil case was
eventually dismissed by reason of a compromise agreement where del Mar agreed to pay damages to the
justices. Eventually, the CA suspended Atty. Del Mar from practice.
The issue reached the Supreme Court. Del Mar asked the SC to reverse his suspension as well as the CA
decision as to the Montecillo case. The SC denied both and this earned the ire of del Mar as he demanded from
the Clerk of the Supreme Court as to who were the judges who voted against him.
The Supreme Court then directed del Mar to submit an explanation as to why he should not be
disciplined. Del Mar in his explanation instead tried to justify his actions even stating that had he not been
“convinced that human efforts in [pursuing the case] will be fruitless” he would have continued with the civil
case against the CA justices. In his explanation, del Mar also intimated that even the Supreme Court is part
among “the corrupt, the grafters and those allegedly committing injustice”.
Del Mar even filed a civil case against some Supreme Court justices before the Court of First Instance in
Cebu but the judge who handled the case dismissed the same citing an American ruling when the Philippines
was still under the jurisdiction of American Laws, that a justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines cannot
be civilly held liable. Article 204 of the Penal Code still remains incorporated for observance and fulfillment in
the Philippines, being an independent and sovereign state, though.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Del Mar should be suspended.
HELD:
Yes. Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts. As an officer of
the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard
towards the court so essential to the proper administration of justice.
It is manifest that del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on the flimsy
ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of both Courts by claiming
that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is that they acted with intent and malice,
if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the case of his client.
Del Mar was then suspended indefinitely.