(3) AMELITO R. MUTUC vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
Facts:
The Court of Appeals promulgated a resolution fixing at P5,000.00 the amount of the bond for
the provisional release of one Fortunato Medina, such bond being required by the provision of Rules of
Court. Fortunato Medina filed a motion for reconsideration, however, it was denied for lack of merit
But before the Court of Appeals could act on petitioner's motion for reconsideration the
following news article attributed to Atty. Amelito Mutuc, counsel of record of Medina, appeared in issue
of the Manila Times. Mutuc spoke of the case of Fortunato Medina that since his arrest, he has been
detained without any criminal case filed in court against him. Through a petition for habeas corpus
filed by Mutuc with the Supreme Court, the case was remanded to the lower court. The lower court
later ruled that Medina's detention was illegal since there was no pending criminal case against him.
The court ordered his immediate release. But the Solicitor General's office appealed the ruling to the
Court of Appeals. Mutuc said the Court of Appeals Fourth Division denied this motion and ordered
Medina post a P5,000.00 bail bond for his provisional liberty.
The Manila Times issued the news item that Fortunate Medina escaped from confinement upon
the advice of his counsel, Atty. Amelito Mutuc. The latter took pride in having advised Fortunato
Medina to escape from jail, issued the following statement: I am ready and willing to be imprisoned
or stripped of my privilege as a lawyer if the Supreme Court so decrees that my cause is not just and
that I am in error.
Considering the statements attributed to Atty. Mutuc as grossly defiant, offensive and
derogatory to the dignity and integrity of the members of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals,
the latter required Atty. Mutuc to show cause why he should not be held liable and dealt with for
contempt and suspended from the practice of law as member of the Philippine Bar.
Hence, a petition was filed by Atty. Mutoc with the Supreme Court seeking to annul the
aforementioned resolution of the Court of Appeals. However, the petition was denied. After remand of
the case by the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, promulgated a decision reiterating its resolution
requiring Atty. Mutuc to show cause why he should not be held liable and dealt with contempt and
suspended from the practice of law.
Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify the members of the respondent court "on the ground of
bias and prejudice and that they had prejudged the case against him" which was denied in a resolution
and which again directed petitioner to show cause why he should not be held liable for contempt of
court and suspended from the practice of law. And so, for the second time, this case was elevated to
the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction.
Petitioner argued that in ordering him to "show cause why he should not be dealt with for
contempt of court and be suspended from the practice of law after, not before, finding him guilty of
contempt of court and of having violated his lawyer's oath and in refusing to disqualify themselves
from proceeding further, the Court of Appeals has deprived petitioner of his right to due process of
law." He further alleged that he has been deprived of his right to a hearing before being found guilty
of contempt of court and of having given ground for suspension from the practice of law which is in
violation of his right to due process of law.
Respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that the disputed resolution of the respondent
court substantially followed a standard form of citations for contempt and that the questioned
resolution is a prima facie finding as a basis for requiring petitioner to show cause why he should not

be proceeded against for making the statements attributed to him in the newspaper. Without such
findings, there would be no basis for ordering petitioner to answer.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was deprived of due process by the resolution of the Court of Appeals in
question.
Held:
There is no question that the "essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before
an impartial and disinterested tribunal" but due process as a constitutional precept does not, always
and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in the
reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's
defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded,
there is no denial of procedural due process. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous
notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. Petitioner cannot
allege lack of due process since in all the four (4) questioned resolutions, he was given ample time to
explain why he should not be held in contempt of court and suspended from the practice of law. What
due process contemplates is freedom from arbitrariness and what it requires is fairness or justice, the
substance rather than the form being paramount.
The petition is DENIED and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.