Duty of the Lawyer to the Courts - Duty of Respect

G.R. No. 75209 September 30, 1987

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC vs. HON. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ

Union of Filipro Employees, and Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia
intensified the intermittent pickets they had been conducting in front of the Padre Faura gate of the
Supreme Court building. They constructed provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set up a kitchen and
littered the place with food containers and trash in utter disregard of proper hygiene and sanitation. They
waved their red streamers and placards with slogans, and took turns using loud speakers. These were
done even after their leaders had been received by the Chairmen of the Divisions and Atty. Espinas,
counsel of the Union of Filipro Employees, had been called informing them that the demonstration must
cease immediately for the same constitutes direct contempt of court and that the Court would not
entertain their petitions for as long as the pickets were maintained.

The Court issued a resolution giving the unions the opportunity to withdraw graciously and requiring union
leaders and Atty. Espinas to appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt of court. Atty. Espinas was further required to show cause why he should not be
administratively dealt with. The above-named individuals appeared before the Court and apologized for
the above-described acts, together with an assurance that they will not be repeated. Atty. Espinas further
stated that he had explained to the picketers that any delay in the resolution of their cases is usually for
causes beyond the control of the Court and that the Supreme Court has always remained steadfast in its
role as the guardian of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners liable for their contemptuous acts in relation to the respect due to the
courts

HELD: No. We accept the apologies offered by the respondents and at this time, forego the imposition of
the sanction. 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 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."

The individuals herein cited who are non-lawyers are not knowledgeable in her intricacies of substantive
and adjective laws. The duty and responsibility of advising them, therefore, rest primarily and heavily
upon the shoulders of their counsel of record. Atty. Espinas, did his best to demonstrate to the pickets the
untenability of their acts and posture. This is 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 for their members.