8/10/2019 Paragas vs Cruz

1/21 | P a g e

DIGEST

Paragas vs. Cruz

Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Thursday,

February 23, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: In asking for reconsideration of the Courts

dismissal of his petition for certiorari in the present

case, counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Jeremias

Sebastian, used derogatory expressions against thedignity of the Court in the language of his motion for

reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sebastian is administratively

liable for his actions/language.

Held: The expressions contained in the motion for

reconsideration penned by the counsel of the petitioner

are plainly contemptuous and disrespectful and he is

hereby guilty of direct contempt of court.

As remarked in People vs. Carillo: Counsel should

conduct himself towards the judges who try his cases

with that courtesy all have a right to expect. As an

officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to

help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high

esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to

the proper administration of justice.

It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending

the cause and rights of his client, should do so with all

the fervor and energy of which he is capable, but it is

not, and never will be so, for him to exercise said right

by resorting to intimidation or proceeding without the

propriety and respect which the dignity of the courts

require.

In Paragas vs. Cruz, 14 SCRA 809, a lawyer

was suspended because of derogatorystatements in his Motion for

Reconsideration.

FULL CASE:

G.R. No. L-24438 July 30, 1965ROSAURO PARAGAS,petitioner,vs.FERNANDO A. CRUZ, Judge of the Court of FirstInstance of Caloocan City;THE CITY FISCAL OF CALOOCAN CITY and ELPO(EL PORVENIR RUBBER PRODUCTS,

INC.),respondentsR E S O L U T I O N

REYES, J.B.L., J .:In asking for reconsideration of this Court's dismissalof his petition for certiorariin the above-entitled case,

Atty. Jeremias T. Sebastian, acting as counsel departefor petitioner Rosauro Paragas, stated thefollowing in his written motion, filed on May 22, 1965:

"The petitioner respectfully prays for areconsideration of the resolution of thisHonorable Court dated April 20, 1965 on the

ground that it constitutes a violation of Section14 of Rule 112 of the Rules, of Courtpromulgated by this very Hon. SupremeCourt, and on the further ground that it islikewise a violation of the most important rightin the Bill of Rightsof the Constitution of thePhilippines, a culpable violation which is aground for impeachment."

... . The rule of law in a democracy shouldalways be upheld and protected by all means,because the rule of law creates and preservespeace and order and gives satisfaction and

contentment to all concerned. Butwhen thelaws and the rules are violated, the victimsresort, sometimes, to armed force and to theways of the cave-men! We do not wantVerzosa and Reyes repeatedagain andagain, killed in the premises of the SupremeCourt and in those of the City Hall of Manila .Educated people should keep their temperunder control at all times! But justice shouldbe done to all concerned to perpetuate thevery life of Democracy on the face of theearth."

Considering the foregoing expressions to bederogatory to its dignity, this Court, by Resolution ofJune 2, 1965, after quoting said statements required

Atty. Sebastian to show cause why administrativeaction should not be taken against him.

On June 18, 1965, counsel filed an "explanatorymemorandum," stating:

When we said that the said violation is aground for impeachment, the undersigned did

8/10/2019 Paragas vs Cruz

2/22 | P a g e

not say that he would file impeachmentproceedings against the Justices whosupported the resolution. We said only whatwe said. The task of impeaching the highestJustices in this country is obviously not thetask for a common man, like the undersigned;it is a herculean task which only exceptionalmen, like Floor Leader Jose Laurel Jr., cando. In addition to this, we do not have the

time, the means and the strength for thispurpose.

The assertion that "But when the laws and therules are violated, the victims resort,sometimes, to armed force and to the ways ofthe cave-men! We do not want Verzosa andReyes repeated again and again, killed in the

premises of the Supreme Court and in thoseof the City Hall of Manila,"is only a statementof fact and of our wish. We learn fromobservation that when the laws and the rulesare violated, the victims, sometimes, resort toarmed force and to the ways of the cavemen,as shown in the case of Luis M. Taruc and inthe case of Jesus Lava, both of whom went tothe mountains when they were not allowed totake their seats in the House ofRepresentatives and, according to thenewspapers, one was charged with murderand was found guilty. It was only recently thatJesus Lava surrendered to the authorities. Wehad this sad recollection when we wrote theunderlined passage mentioned in thisparagraph. While writing that BRIEF MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION, the thought ofVerzosa and Reyes flashed across the mindof the undersigned as the shooting of thosetwo government employees must haveresulted from some kind of dissatisfaction withtheir actuations while in office. We stated orthe undersigned stated that we are against therepetition of these abominable acts that surelydisturbed the peace and order of thecommunity. Shall the undersigned bepunished by this Honorable Supreme Courtonly for telling the truth, for telling whathappened before in this Country? Our

statement is clear and unmistakable, becausewe stated "We do not want Verzosa andReyes repeated ..." The intention of theundersigned is likewise clear andunmistakable; he is against the repetition ofthese acts of subversion and hate!

We find the explanations submitted to beunsatisfactory. The expressions contained in themotion for reconsideration, previously quoted, areplainly contemptuous and disrespectful, and reference

to the recent killing of two employees is but a covertthreat upon the members of the Court.

That such threats and disrespectful languagecontained in a pleading filed in Courts are constitutiveof direct contempt has been repeatedly decided(Salcedo vs. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724; People vs.Varturanza 52 Off. Gaz. 769: Medina vs. Rivera, 66Phil. 151; De Joya vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal,

L-9785, Sept. 19, 1956; Sison vs. Sandejas, L-9270,April 29, 1959; Lualhati vs. Albert, 57 Phil. 86). Whatmakes the present case more deplorable is that theguilty party is a member of the bar; for, as remarkedin People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 580

Counsel should conduct himself towards thejudges who try his cases with that courtesy allhave a right to expect. As an officer of thecourt, it is his sworn and moral duty to helpbuild and not destroy unnecessarily that highesteem and regard towards the courts soessential to the proper administration of

justice.

It is right and plausible that an attorney, indefending the cause and rights of his client,should do so with all the fervor and energy ofwhich he is capable, but it is not, and neverwill be so, for him to exercise said right byresorting to intimidation or proceeding withoutthe propriety and respect which the dignity ofthe courts require. (Salcedo vs. Hernandez,[In re Francisco], 61 Phil. 729)

Counsel's disavowal of any offensive intent is of noavail, for it is a well-known and established rule thatdefamatory words are to be taken in the ordinarymeaning attached to them by impartial observers.

A mere disclaimer of any intentionaldisrespect by appellant is no ground forexoneration. His intent must be determined bya fair interpretation of the languages by himemployed. He cannot escape responsibility byclaiming that his words did not mean what anyreader must have understood them as

meaning. (In re Franco, 67 Phil. 313)

WHEREFORE, Atty. Jeremias T. Sebastian is herebyfound guilty of direct contempt, and sentenced to paya fine of P200.00 within ten days from notice hereof,or, in case of default, to suffer imprisonment notexceeding ten (10) days. And he is warned that asubsequent repetition of the offense will be moredrastically dealt with.