LEGAL ETHICS

CANON 11
1. IN RE: SOTTO, 82 PHIL. 595
January 21, 1949
FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why
he s h o u l d n o t b e p u n i s h e d f o r c o n t e m p t i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s written statement of the Supreme
Court's decision in the matter of Angel Parazo's case,
which was published in Manila Times and in other
newspapers in the locality. Sotto was given ten days more
besides the five originally given him to fi le his answer,
and although his answer was fi led after the expiration
of the period of time given him the said answer was
admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the
statement as it has been published. He however, contends
that
under
section1 3 ,
Article
VIII
of
the
Con sti tu ti on , whi ch con f e rs u p on th i s S u p re me
Court
the
power
to
p romu l g ate
rules
c o n c e r n i n g pleading, practice, and procedure, the
Supreme Court has no power to impose correctional
penalties upon the citizens, and it can only impose
fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be
promulgated by Congress with the approval of the
Chief Executive. He also alleges in his answer that "in the
exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the
press with the utmost good faith and with no intention
of offending any of the majority of the honorable members
of
this
high
Tribunal,
who,
in
his
opinion,
erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not
attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity
of any one.
Issue: Whether or not Sotto is guilty of contempt?

HELD: The Court fi nds that the respondent Sotto

knowingly
members.

published

false

imputations

against

its

He accused them of such d e p r a v i t y a s t o h a v e

committed
"blunders
and
injustices
d e l i b e r a t e l y. " H e h a s m a l i c i o u s l y b r a n d e d
t h e m t o b e incompetent, narrow-minded, perpetrators of
evil, "a constant peril to liberty and democracy," to be the
opposite of those who were the honor and glory of the
Philippines judiciary, to be n e e d i n g a l e s s o n i n l a w ,
to b e re n d e ri ng an in tol e rab le se n ten ce , to be
n e e d i n g r e p l a c e m e n t b y b e t t e r q u a l i fi e d
Justices. Re s p o n d e n t
has
not
p re se n te d
any
e v i d e n c e o r o ff e r e d a n y t o support his slanderous
imputations, and no single word can be found in his answer
showing that he ever believed that the imputations are based
on fact. It is also well settled that an attorney as an
offi cer of the court is u n d e r s p e c i a l o b l i g a t i o n t o b e
r e s p e c t f u l i n h i s c o n d u c t a n d communication to the
courts; he may be removed from offi ce or s t r i c k e n
f rom the rol l of attorn e ys as b ei n g g u il ty of
fl a g r a n t misconduct.
HELD: LEGAL ETHICS BOOK BY PINEDA
To hurl the false charge that this court has been for the last
years committing deliberately, so many blunders and
injustices that is to say, that it has been deciding in favor of
one party knowing that the law and justice is on part of the
adverse party and not on the one in whose favor the decision
was rendered, in many cases decided during the last years,
would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the
people in the honesty and integrity of members of the court,
and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of

justice by this court. The SC of the Phils is, under the

constitution, the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may
repair to obtain relief for their grievances or protection, and if
the people may lose their confidence in the honesty and
integrity of the members of this court and believe that they
cannot expect justice there from, they might be driven to take
the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos
might be the result.
As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty
Viente Sotto, like any other, is in duty bound to upheld the
dignity and authority of this court, to which he owes fidelity
according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not
to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to
the courts guarantees the stability of other institution, which
without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.
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.

2. MONTECILLO V. GICA, 60, SCRA 235

FACTS: Atty. Del Mar represented Montecillo in a
defl ation case against Gica. The RTC ruled in favor of
Montecillo however CA reversed the decision. Atty. Del Mar
moved for reconsideration of the CAs decision with veiled
threats by mentioning the provisions of RPC on knowingly
rendered unjust judgment and judgment rendered through
negligence, and the innuendo that the CA allowed itself to
be deceived. CA admonished Del Mar to remember that
threats and abusive language cannot compel any court
to grant reconsideration. On the second motion of Del Mar,
he insinuated that he will bring the matter to the President of
the Philippines and reiterated his threats. He was asked to
explain within 10 days why he should not be punished. He
responded by saying that the court cannot be threatened

and also sent a letter to the Justices informing that he

already sent the letter to the President. He also
reminded them of another civil case he had against the
justices of SC. He was found guilty if contempt by the CA and
condemned to pay a fine (200) and ordered to be suspended
from the practice of law. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. del Mar is guilty of contempt of
court?
HELD: YES. 1. It may appear that second only to the duty
of maintaining allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the
laws of the Philippines , is the duty of all attorneys to observe
and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officer but it is of paramount importance. A lawyer
must always remember that he is an officer of the court
exercising a high privilege and serving in the noble mission of
administering justice.
2. A just man can never be threatened is not at all true. Any
man, just or unjust, can be threatened. If he is unjust, he will
succumb, if he is just, he will not.
3. A lawyer facing contempt proceedings cannot just
be allowed to voluntary retire from the practice of law,
an act which would negate the inherent power of the
court to punish him for contempt in defense of its
integrity and honor. His accusations tend to erode the
peoples faith in the integrity of the courts of justice and in
the administration of justice. (He wanted to retire because
of old age but the court did not allow it.)
COMMENTS FROM BOOK LEGAL ETHICS by PINEDA
1. A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or
threatening language betrays disrespect to the court,
disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the court
of its disciplinary power

2. Instances of disrespectful language lawyers veiled

threat that he would prosecute those concerned for
knowingly rendered through negligence with the
innuendo that the Court of Appeal allowed itself to be
deceived.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior before
the Courts.

3. PARAGAS V CRUZ, 14 SCRA 809

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 the dignity of the Court in the language of
his motion for reconsideration
Issue: Whether or not Atty.
liable for his actions/language.

Sebastian is administratively

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.

COMMENTS: LEGAL ETHICS BOOK by PINEDA

Held: a mere disclaimer of any intentional disrespect by
appellant is no ground for exoneration. His intent must be
determined by a fair interpretation of the languages
employed by him. He cannot escape responsibility by claiming
that his words did not mean what any reader must have
understood them as meaning.

RULE 11.04 a lawyer shall not attribute to a

judge motive not supported by the record or have
no materiality to the case.
4. IN RE: AGUAS, 1 PHIL 1
FACTS:
From the record during the progress of the trial before the
Court of first instance in Pampanga, the court had occasion to
caution Angel Alberto, a witness in the case, not to look at the
attorney for the defendant but to fix his attention on the
judge who was at the time examining him. The witness did
not give heed of the warning, thereupon the judge arose from
his seat and approach the witness, seized him by the
shoulders and using the expression lingon ang mucha (look
at me) either shook him, as insisted by the attorney of the
defendant, or only turned him about, as claimed by the judge
and others. Whether the witness was shaken or not, at all
events seizing him brought the action and protest against
the action of the judge as coercive of the witness and
demanded that a record be made of the occurrence and that
the further hearing of the case be postponed.
Two days after the clerk of court entered a record a recital of
the incident and a statement that on other and prior occasion,
the attorney, Marcelino Aguas had been wanting in respect to
the court by making use of improper phrases and by
interrupting the opposing counsel in the examination of the

witness. The lower court adjudged the attorney to be in

contempt of court and suspended him from practice of his
profession for a period of 20 days. The attorney appealed but
his appeal has been denied by the lower court, he asked to be
heard in justification which was granted.

ISSUE:
1.WON the attorney is disrespectful to the court or
offensive to to dignity?
2. WON the attorney had the right to protest and to
demand that the incident be made a matter of record?
HELD: the opinion of the court that the action of the judge in
seizing Alberto Aguas by the shoulder and turning him about
was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from
unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled
while giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such
conduct the appellant had the right to pretest and to demand
that the incident be made a matter of record. That he did so
was not contempt, providing protest and demand were
respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the
court XXXX

*** While lawyers are prohibited to attribute

motives to a judge not supported by the record,
lawyers must however be courageous enough to
expose arbitrariness and injustices of courts and
judges.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO,

FORMER STATE PROSECUTOR A.C. No. 7006 October 9,
200718.
Facts: In the Crim. Case No. 5144, which is declared by
Judge Buyser as a crime of homicide and not of murder, the
counsel for the defense filed a Motion to Fix the Amount of
Bail Bond. Respondent Atty. Bagabuyo objected thereto on
the ground that the original charge of murder is not subject
to bail. Judge Jose Manuel P. Tan favorably resolved the
Motion for bail and denied the respondents motion for
reconsideration for lack of merit. Instead of availing himself of
judicial remedies, respondent caused the publication of an
article regarding the order, in which prosecutor lambasts and
lashes out at judge Tan for allowing the murder suspect out
on bail. The article also contains misrepresentation about the
strength of the evidence against the accused in the criminal
case. Respondent admits to have held a press conference but
refused to answer whether he made the statements in the
newspaper article. For refusing to answer, the trial court
declared him in contempt. After this, respondent still
entertained media interview in a radio station, and in said
interview, again attacked the integrity of Judge Tan, calling
him a judge who does not know the law, a liar, and a dictator
who does not accord due process to the people. He was
ordered by the trial cause to show cause why he should not
be held in contempt and not be suspended from the practice
of law for violating Canon 11 and 13 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. However, on scheduled hearing
respondent did not appear or informed the court of his
absence.
Issue: Whether or not respondent should be suspended for
violating the Code

Ruling: The Office of the Bar Confidant found that the acts of
the respondent constitute grave violation of oath of office,
and with said findings the Supreme Court agreed.
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
caused the holding of a press conference where he made
statements against the Order allowing the accused to post
bail. He also violated the same Canon for his disrespect of the
court when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law,
that he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law
and that he was a liar. The SC held that it is not against
lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules
provide the proper venue and procedure because respect for
the institution must always be maintained. Hence, Atty.
Bagabuyo was suspended from the practice of law for one
year.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.

RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY 2005 OF ATTY. NOEL

S. SORREDA.
A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC July 22, 2005
Facts: Atty. Noel S. Sorreda wrote a letter addressed to the
Chief Justice over his frustrations of the outcome of his cases
decided by the Supreme Court. The letter contained
derogatory and malignant remarks which are highly insulting.
The Court accorded Atty. Sorreda to explain, however, instead
of appearing before the court, he wrote another letter with
insulting remarks as the first one. The court was thus
offended with his remarks.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Sorreda can be held guilty of

contempt due to the remarks he has made in his letters
addressed to the court.
Held: Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending
to embarrass the court or to bring it into disrepute have no
place in a pleading. Their employment serves no useful
purpose. On the contrary, they constitute direct contempt of
court or contempt in facie curiae and a violation of the
lawyers oath and a transgression of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As officer of the court, Atty. Sorreda has the
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts and to
promote confidence in the fair administration of justice.
no less must this be and with greater reasons in the case of
the countrys highest court, the Supreme Court, as the last
bulwark of justice and democracy Atty. Sorreda must be
reminded that his first duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice, to which his clients success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics. The use of
intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be
justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial
forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a
treasured tradition that must at no time be lost to it.
Hence, Atty. Sorreda has transcended the permissible bounds
of fair comment and constructive criticism to the detriment of
the orderly administration of justice. Free expression, after
all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones irrational
obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this
Court and its magistrates. Thus, ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA is
found guilty both of contempt of court and violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility amounting to gross
misconduct as an officer of the court and member of the Bar.

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
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
behavior before the Courts.