G.R. No. 585 - DECEMBER 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. 585December 14, 1979 Emilia E. Andres vs. Stanley R. Cabrera G.R. No. L-24670December 14, 1979 Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co. G.R. No. L-26339December 14, 1979 Mariano C. Pamintuan vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-28201December 14, 1979 Evaristo Coloma, et al. vs. Placido C. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-29451December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio al varado, et al. G.R. No. L-29980December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Ang, et al. G.R. No. L-31782December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Lanza G.R. No. L-33228December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Guevarra G.R. No. L-33314December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Efren L. Urminita G.R. No. L-33607December 14, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio B. Madlangbayan G.R. No. L-35673December l4, 1979 Antonio S. Cohon vs. Antonio D. Cinco G.R. No. L-38730December 14, 1979 The People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Resurreccion, et al. G.R. No. L-49360December 14, 1979 Filemon David vs. Hon. Gregorio U. Aquilizan, et al. G.R. No. 50480December 14, 1979 Continental Bank vs. Joel P. Tiangco G.R. No. L-36752-53December 18, 1979 Commissioner of Public Highways, et al. vs. Francisco P. Burgos, et al. G.R. No. L-42595December 18, 1979 Eustaquio al ejandro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-43048December 18, 1979 Antonio Dela Peña vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-43235December 18, 1979 Paterno Villareal vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-45271December 18, 1979 Emigdio Bañez vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-45694December 18, 1979 Brigida Reyes vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-49835December 18, 1979 Twin Peaks Mining Asso. vs. Pedro C. Navarro G.R. No. L-50092December 18, 1979 Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Nat'l. Housing Corp. A.M. No. P-1669December 27, 1979 George C. Custodio vs. Apolonio F. Fulinara A.M. No. P-2315December 27, 1979 Hon. J. Cezar Sangco vs. Francisca Hidalgo G.R. No. L-26829December 27, 1979 Gonzalo B. Mendoza vs. Fernando A. Cruz G.R. No. L-32571December 27, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Pajarillo, et al. G.R. No. L-35063December 27, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Rizal A. Ramos G.R. No. L-35537December 27, 1979 Francisco Santana vs. Sotero Mariñas G.R. Nos. L-46626-27December 27, 1979 Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-47146December 27, 1979 Lolita Santos vs. Dep't. of Labor G.R. No. L-51077December 27, 1979 Central Textile Mills, Inc. vs. United (Cmc) Textile Workers Union-Tgwf A.M. No. P-1568.December 28, 1979 Atty Francisco E. Antonio vs. Rodrigo E. Diaz G.R. No. L-24265December 28, 1979 Procter & Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Mun. of Jagna G.R. No. L-25966December 28, 1979 Fermin A. Bagadiong vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales, et al. G.R. No. L-38421December 28, 1979 Social Security System vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-42294December 28, 1979 Ildefonso Geraldo, Sr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-43139December 28, 1979 Melanio Perez vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-46541December 28, 1979 Overseas Bank of Mla. vs. Ambrosio M. Geraldez G.R. No. L-46833December 28, 1979 The People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Sarmiento G.R. No. L-48250December 28, 1979 Grand Union Supermarket, Inc., et al. vs. Jose J. Espino Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Emilia E. Andres vs. Stanley R. Cabrera Ortigas & Co., Limited Partnership vs. Feati Bank and Trust Co. Mariano C. Pamintuan vs. Court of Appeals Evaristo Coloma, et al. vs. Placido C. Ramos, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio al varado, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Santiago Ang, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Teodoro Lanza People of the Philippines vs. Domingo Guevarra People of the Philippines vs. Efren L. Urminita People of the Philippines vs. Antonio B. Madlangbayan Antonio S. Cohon vs. Antonio D. Cinco The People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Resurreccion, et al. Filemon David vs. Hon. Gregorio U. Aquilizan, et al. Continental Bank vs. Joel P. Tiangco Commissioner of Public Highways, et al. vs. Francisco P. Burgos, et al. Eustaquio al ejandro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Antonio Dela Peña vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Paterno Villareal vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. Emigdio Bañez vs. Republic of the Philippines Brigida Reyes vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. Twin Peaks Mining Asso. vs. Pedro C. Navarro Ramon A. Gonzales vs. Nat'l. Housing Corp. George C. Custodio vs. Apolonio F. Fulinara Hon. J. Cezar Sangco vs. Francisca Hidalgo Gonzalo B. Mendoza vs. Fernando A. Cruz People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Pajarillo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rizal A. Ramos Francisco Santana vs. Sotero Mariñas Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Lolita Santos vs. Dep't. of Labor Central Textile Mills, Inc. vs. United (Cmc) Textile Workers Union-Tgwf Atty Francisco E. Antonio vs. Rodrigo E. Diaz Procter & Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Mun. of Jagna Fermin A. Bagadiong vs. Feliciano S. Gonzales, et al. Social Security System vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Ildefonso Geraldo, Sr. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Melanio Perez vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Overseas Bank of Mla. vs. Ambrosio M. Geraldez The People of the Philippines vs. Gaudencio Sarmiento Grand Union Supermarket, Inc., et al. vs. Jose J. Espino Jr., et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 585 December 14, 1979

EMILIA E. ANDRES,petitioner,
vs.
STANLEY R. CABRERA,respondent.

GUERRERO,J.:

In a resolution of this Court dated October 11, 1979, respondent Stanley R. Cabrera. a successful bar examine in 1977 and against whom a petition to disqualify him from membership in the Bar is pending in this Court in the above-entitled case, was required to show cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court.

The above citation for contempt against the respondent was issued by the Court following the persistence of the respondent in the use of, abusive and vituperative language despite the Court's admonition implicit in Our previous resolution of June 5, 1979 deferring the oath-taking of respondent pending showing that he has amended his ways and conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language.

The petition to disqualify respondent from admission to the Bar was filed by Atty. Emilia F. Andres, Legal Officer II in the Office of the Minister, Ministry of Labor on the ground of lack of good moral character as shown by his propensity in using vile, uncouth, and in civil language to the extent of being reprehensively malicious and criminally libelous and likewise, for his proclivity in filing baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal cases.

It appears that Atty. Emilia E. Andres, designated as Special Investigator to investigate the administrative charge filed by Mrs. Presentacion R. Cabrera, mother of the respondent, against one, Atty. Benjamin Perez, former Hearing Officer of the defunct Workmen's Compensation Unit, Region IV, Manila, for alleged dishonesty, oppression and discourtesy, recommended the dismissal of the charge even as the records of two relevant Workmen's Compensation cases were not produced at the hearing, notwithstanding the request of the respondent. When the Minister of Labor dismissed the charges upon Atty. Andres' recommendation, respondent filed with the City Fiscal of Manila criminal charges of infidelity in the custody of documents. falsification of public documents, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against the investigator.

Supporting these criminal charges are affidavits of respondent Stanley R. Cabrera wherein Atty. Andres. now the petitioner, points to the vile, in civil and uncouth language used by respondent, as shown in the following excerpts:

The same words and phrases are used in respondent's other affidavits supporting the criminal cases against the petitioner such as the following:

On April 28, 1977, this Court required respondent to file an answer to the petition to disqualify him from admission to the Bar and ordered at the same time that his oath-taking be held in abeyance until further orders.ℒαwρhi৷In his answer, respondent admits the filing of criminal cases in the City Fiscal's Office against the petitioner but he claims that his language was not vile uncouth and un civil due to the simple reason that the same is the truth and was made with good intentions and justifiable motives pursuant to respondent's sense of justice as cherished under the New Society, aside from being absolutely privileged. Respondent's answer, however, repeats his former allegations that "Atty. Emilia Andres is not only a moron" and reiterates "the moronic discharge of public functions by complainant Atty. Emilia Andres."

The records show repeated motions of respondent dated October 21, 1977 and February 22, 1978 for the early resolution of his case and in his letter dated April 11, 1978 addressed to then Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro, respondent sought, in his very words "some semblance of justice from the Honorable Supreme Court of the Philippines" and another letter to the Chief Justice dated August 17, 1978 making reference to the "avalance of the sadistic resolution en banc," "the cruel and inhuman punishment the Court has speedily bestowed upon undersigned respondent," "the Court does not honor its own resolution," and closing his letter thus — "A victim of the Court's inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction."

We referred the petition of Atty. Emilia Andres to the Legal Investigator of the Court for investigation, report and recommendation which was submitted on May 24, 1979. Acting on said report, the Court resolved to defer the oath-taking of respondent pending showing that he has amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language. Thereafter, respondent filed on September 3, 1979 an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to annul Our resolution of June 5, 1979 and to reinvestigate the case, preferably giving opportunity to respondent to argue his case orally before the Court or to allow him to take his oath of office as an attorney. We denied the motion.

On September 11, 1979, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Contempt of Court, praying the Supreme Court to cite complainant Atty. Emilia Andres for contempt of court, alleging that her false and malicious accusations coupled with her improper and obnoxious acts during the investigation impeded, obstructed and degraded the administration of justice. Under paragraph 2 of said motion, he states:

We noted that the above paragraph is a repetition of paragraph 4 in respondent's previous Urgent Ex-Parte Motion dated September 3, 1979 which also states:

We also took note in respondent's Urgent Motion for Contempt of Court the language used by him in praying this Court "to impose upon said Emilia E. Andres imprisonment commensurate to the humiliation andvomitting injusticeundersigned respondent-movant suffered and still suffering from this Court due to complainant Atty. Emilia E. Andres' wanton dishonesty."

It is obvious and self-evident that respondent has not amended his conduct despite the Court's admonition. Respondent persists and keeps on using abusive and vituperative language before the Court. Accordingly, We resolved in Our resolution of October 11, 1979 to require respondent to show cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court.

Respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated September 27, 1979 wherein he tried to assure the Court that he has amended his ways and has conformed to the use of polite, courteous and civil language and prayed that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. We denied it on October 16, 1979.

Thereafter, respondent submitted a pleading entitled "Subrosa" dated October 22, 1979 and answered the citation for contempt against him in the following wise and manner:

We reject totally respondent's supposed humble apology "for all his non-conformity to the use of polite, courteous and civil language in all his pleadings filed with the Court and on his solemn word of honor pledges not to commit the same hereinafter" and his disavowal of intent of "defiance of (the) Court's authority nor to scandalize (its) integrity, dignity and respect which this Court enjoys." Such apology and disavowal appear to be in sincere, sham and artful for respondent in the same breadth contends that his statement calling the Court's resolution of June 5, 1979 as "a degradation of the administration of justice" was made "with utmost, good faith out of frustration of respondent's inability to take his lawyer's oath since April, 1977 and in justifiable indignation of the illegalities perpetrated by both complainant Emilia E. Andres and Legal Investigation Victor Sevilla."

Although respondent is not yet admitted to the legal profession but now stands at the threshold thereof, having already passed the Bar examinations, it is as much his duty as every attorney-at-law already admitted to the practice of law to ..observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers (Sec. 20, (b), Rule 138, Rules of Court) and "to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged" (Sec. 20, (f), Rule 138). According to the Canons of Professional Ethics, 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. Judges, not being wholly free to defend themselves, are particularly entitled to receive the support of the Bar against unjust criticism and clamor. This duty is likewise incumbent upon one aspiring to be a lawyer such as the respondent for the attorney's oath solemnly enjoins him to "conduct myself as a lawyer according to to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the Courts as to my client.

The power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt is inherent and extends to suits at law as well as to administrative proceedings as in the case at bar for it is as necessary to maintain respect for the courts, in administrative cases as it is in any other class of judicial proceedings. Under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person guilty of any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice may be punished for contempt, and the reason is that respect for the courts guarantees their stability and permanence Without such guaranty, the institution of the courts would be resting on a very loose and flimsy foundation, such power is essential to the proper execution and effective maintenance of judicial authority.

Respondent's use of vile rude and repulsive language is patent and palpable from the very words, phrases and sentences he has written and which are quoted herein. 'They speak for themselves in their vulgarity, insolence and calumny. Specifically, respondent's direct reference to the Court on the ..sadistic resolution en banc, " "the cruel and inhuman punishment the Court has speedily bestowed" upon him, that "the Court does not honor its own resolution," that he is "a victim of the Court's inhuman and cruel punishment through its supreme inaction," and that he is suffering "humiliation and vomitting in justice" from this Court is not only disrespectful but his charges are false, sham and unfounded.

'There is no excuse, much less plea or pretext to brand ultimately the Court's resolution deferring oath-taking of the respondent as a new lawyer issued June 5, 1979 as "a degradation of the administration of justice." By his improper conduct in the use of highly disrespectful insolent language, respondent has tended to degrade the administration of justice; he has disparaged the dignity and brought to disrepute the integrity and authority of the Court. He has committed contempt of this Court.

WHEREFORErespondent Stanley Cabrera is found guilty of contempt and he is hereby sentenced to pay this Court within ten days from notice hereof a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) or imprisonment of fifty (50) days.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent's personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant.

SO ORDERED

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Abad Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.