G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013, ROLANDO GANZON vs.

FERNANDO ARLOS

We have time and again emphasized that the conduct and behavior or everyone connected with an
office charged with the administration of justice must at all times be characterized by propriety and
decorum. This Court will not tolerate misconduct committed by court personnel, particularly during
office hours and within court premises. Such misconduct shows a total lack of respect for the court,
and erodes the good image of the judiciary in the eyes of the public.

Xxxx

(c) Justness and sincerity. – Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all
times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone,
especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and
shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order,
public safety and public interest. (Emphasis supplied)

It is almost superfluous to remind all public employees like Ganzon that the law of good manners
and proper decorum was law during as well as outside office hours.

A.M. No. SB-12-18-P, June 13, 2012, SHIRLEY C. DIOMAMPO, Records Officer II,
Sandiganbayan vs.FELIPE C. LARIBO, JR., Shuttle Bus Driver, Sandiganbayan

The utterance of foul words that degrade morality should not be countenanced. It amounts
to disgraceful and immoral conduct defined by the Civil Service Commission as "an act
which violates the basic norm of decency,morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the
society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community." In Court
Employees of the MCTC, Ramon Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur v. Sy, the Court stated that
"immorality is not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. It is not confined to sexual matters, but
includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and
dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of
respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and
public welfare."

Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater
demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual than in the judiciary. That is why
this Court has firmly laid down exacting standards of morality and decency expected of those in the
service of the judiciary.

The Court has consistently been reminding officials and employees of the Judiciary that their
conduct or behavior is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility which, at all times, should
be characterized by, among other things, strict propriety and decorum. "Part of this stringent
requirement is that agents of the law should refrain from the use of language that is abusive,
offensive, scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper. Judicial employees are expected to
accord every due respect, not only to their superiors, but also to others and their rights at all times.
Their every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity."

A.C. No. 8208, RET. JUDGE VIRGILIO ALPAJORA vs. ATTY. RONALDO ANTONIO V.
CALAYAN

As officers of the court, lawyers are duty-bound to observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and judicial officers. They are to abstain from offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the court and must refrain from attributing to a judge motives that are not supported by the
record or have no materiality to the case.

Xxxxx

Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the CPR state that:

Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxx

Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds respondent guilty of attributing unsupported ill-motives to
complainant. It must be remembered that all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
the courts, and to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is the respect for the
courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting
on a very shaky foundation.54

Hence, no matter how passionate a lawyer is towards defending his client's cause, he must not
forget to display the appropriate decorum expected of him, being a member of the legal profession,
and to continue to afford proper and utmost respect due to the courts.

Failure to observe candor, fairness and good faith before the court; failure to assist in the speedy
and efficient administration of justice

It cannot be gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious
administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty
to satisfy that expectation. Otherwise, the administration of justice would gravely suffer if indeed it
could proceed at all.

G.R. Nos. 115908-09 March 29, 1995, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANNY GODOY

JUDGE EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR. vs. MAURICIO REYNOSO, JR. and EVA P. PONCE DE
LEON

In whatever context it may arise, contempt of court involves the doing of an act, or the failure to do
an act, in such a manner as to create an affront to the court and the sovereign dignity with which it is
clothed. As a matter of practical judicial administration, jurisdiction has been felt properly to rest in
only one tribunal at a time with respect to a given controversy. Partly because of administrative
considerations, and partly to visit the full personal effect of the punishment on a contemnor, the rule
has been that no other court than the one contemned will punish a given contempt. 50

The rationale that is usually advanced for the general rule that the power to punish for contempt
rests with the court contemned is that contempt proceedings are sui generis and are triable only by
the court against whose authority the contempt are charged; 51 the power to punish for contempt
exists for the purpose of enabling a court to compel due decorum and respect in its presence and
due obedience to its judgments, orders and processes: 52 and in order that a court may compel
obedience to its orders, it must have the right to inquire whether there has been any disobedience
thereof, for to submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal would operate to deprive the
proceeding of half its efficiency.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, (Rawle’s Third Revision) Eighth Edition, p. 651, citing Wasserman
v. United States, 161 Fed. 722, 88 C.C.A. 582; Garrigan v. United States, 163 Fed. 16, 89 C.C.A.
494, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1295.

In facie curiae literally means in the face of the court, that is, in the presence of the court. There
ought to be no question that courts have the power by virtue of their very creation to impose silence,
respect, and decorum in their presence, submission to their lawful mandates, and to preserve
themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of pollution (Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat
204).

A.M. No.2499-CCC (OCA-101) January 30, 1982, RAYMUNDO G. GARCIA vs. JUDGE AMANTE
Q. ALCONCEL of the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila

A lawyer's oath binds him to observe good fidelity to the courts. He should not perform an act
"involving any disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold" (Lualhati vs. Albert, 57
Phil. 86, 92). He should not use language, which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or
promotes distrust in judicial administration, or which could have the effect of "harboring and
encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the
foundation upon which rests that bulwark caged judicial power to which those who are aggrieved
turn for protection and relief.(Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, L-22979, June 26,1967, 20 SCRA
441, 445).

As stressed in another case, a lawyer's duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to
which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice" (Surigao Mineral
Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, L-27072, January 9, 1972, 31 SCRA 1, 16-17).

A lawyer who has a legitimate cause for grievance against a judge has the right to complain and ask
that discipline action be taken against the erring judge, but he should use decorous and judicious
language, not the vulgar expressions of derision and vilification "Discipline and self-restraint on the
part of the bar even under adverse conditions are necessary for the orderly administration of justice"
(Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1949 Ed., 161-162).