LEGAL ETHICS

CANON 8:

1. FERNANDEZ V HON. BELLO, 197 PHILS 1140Keyword: refund of 200, respondent allegation, below standard of a lawyer)

FACTS:Atty. Manuel Fernandez filed a motion to annul the 2 orders dated June 16 and 23 1958

1st order – reprimand petitioner for his improper conduct as counsel in special proceedings “guardianship of minor Federico and Pedro both surnamed pereyras, timotea pereyras, petitioner-guardian and order him to return to the guardian within 15 days the sum of P200 collected by him.

2nd order – denies petioners motion for reconsideration and warns him not to use improper terms in his pleadingsThe circumstances leading to the issuance of the above orders based on the lower court findings, petitioner that is guilty of contempt of court on 2 grounds:

1st – he instituted guardianship proceedings for the sole purpose of facilitating payment to him of the debts of the wards. Before the guardianship proceedings were instituted, the wards were indebted in the sum of 200 and the only way to settle it is by selling the nipa land. The petitioner believed that it was the proper remedy.

2nd – the lower court also reprimand and order for the refund of 200 and the closing of the guardianship proceedings. Respondent judge justified his order for the return of 200 on the ground that petitioner is “below average standard

of a lawyer”.

Respondent also desires that portions of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration be stricken out for imploring strong language.

ISSUE: WON, portion of petitioner‘s motion for reconsideration be stricken out for imploring strong language?

HELD: NO, the court believe the said language must have been impelled by the same language used by the judge below in characterizing the act of the petitioner as “anomalous and unbecoming” and in charging petitioner of obtaining his fee “through maneuvers of documents of guardian-petitioner” if any one is to blame for the language used by the petitioner, it is the

judge himself who has made insulting remarks in his orders, which must have provoked the petitioner, and the judge below has nothing to blame but himself. If a judge desires not to be insulted he should start using temperate language himself:

HE WHO SOWS THE WIND WILL REAP A STORM.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.

  Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.

2. RHEEM OF THE PHILS V FERRER ( in re: proceedings against Enrile), 205 SCRA 441

Facts: The proceeding for certiorari and contempt is an offshoot of the Court of Industrial Relations’ (CIR) denial of motion to dismiss the respondent’s complaint.

The following was filed by the counsel (Atty. Jose S. Armonio) for the petitioner:

“One pitfall into which this Honorable Court has repeatedly fallen whenever the question as to whether or not a particular subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations is the tendency of this Honorable Court to rely upon its own pronouncement without due regard to the statutes which delineate the jurisdiction of the industrial court. Quite often, it is overlooked that no court, not even this Honorable Court, is empowered to expand or contract through its decision the scope of its jurisdictional authority as conferred by law. This error is manifested by the decisions of this Honorable Court citing earlier rulings but without making any reference to and analysis of the pertinent statute governing the jurisdiction of the Court of Industrial Relations. This manifestation appears in this Honorable Court's decision in the instant case. As a result, the errors committed in earlier

cases dealing with the jurisdiction of the industrial court are perpetuated in subsequent cases involving the same issue . . . .”

The Court ordered counsel to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Armonio’s statements violated the duty of respect to courts.

Held: YES, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that, “it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance.” Worth remembering is the attorney’s duty to the courts “can only be maintained by rendering no service involving disrespect to the judicial office which he is bound to uphold”.

In the case at bar, the Court felt that Atty. Armonio’s language makes a sweeping charge that the decisions of the SC blindly adhere to earlier rulings without making “any reference and analysis” of the pertinent statutes of the CIR. The statements made by counsel detract much from the dignity and respect of the SC. Atty. Armonio was admonished by the SC.

Ratio: disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive personalities, unfounded accusations or intemperate words tending to obstruct, embarrass or influence the court administering justice or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Lack or want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning at best. It extenuates liability.

3. ENRIQUE A. ZALDIVAR vs. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, 20 SCRA 316

FACTS: The following are the subjects of this Resolution filed by the Petitioner: a Motion, dated 9 February 1988, to Cite in Contempt filed by petitioner Enrique A. Salivary against public respondent Special Prosecutor (formerly Tanodbayan) Raul M. Gonzalez, in connection with G.R. Nos. 79690-707 and G.R. No. 80578. And a Resolution of this Court dated 2 May 1988 requiring respondent Hon. Raul Gonzalez to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt and/or subjected to administrative sanctions for making certain public statements. The Motion cited as bases the acts of respondent Gonzalez in:

(1) Having caused the filing of the information against petitioner in Criminal Case No. 12570 before the Sandiganbayan; and(2) Issuing certain allegedly contemptuous statements to the media in relation to the proceedings in G.R. No. 80578. In respect of the latter, petitioner annexed to his Motion a photocopy of a news article which appeared in the 30 November 1987 issue of the "Philippine Daily Globe."

ISSUE: WON, lawyers are entitled to the same degree of latitude of freedom of speech towards the Court?

RULING: No, The Court begins by referring to the authority to discipline officers of the court and members of the Bar. The authority to discipline lawyers stems from the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt, to control in the furtherance of justice the conduct of ministerial officers of the Court including lawyers and all other persons connected in any manner with a case before the Court. Only slightly (if at all) less important is the public interest in the capacity of the Court effectively to prevent and control professional misconduct on the part of lawyers who are, first and foremost, indispensable participants in the task of rendering justice to every man. Some courts have held, persuasively it appears to us, and that a

lawyer's right of free expression may have to be more limited than that of a layman. While the Court may allow criticism it has In Re: Almacen

held: Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients' rights, lawyers even those gifted with superior intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers

*** criticism of courts must not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.