Tiongco v. Aguilar is not without limits.

Such freedom of speech and

240 SCRA 589 (1995) of expression in the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution must be exercised responsibly. As
Facts: one who is aware of the responsibilities of being
in the legal profession, he exceeded the bounds
After of decency in putting forth his criticism when he
After respondent judge ruled against petitioners falsely and maliciously insinuated against the
Atty. Tiongco and his wifes case for recovery of Court, particularly the Members of the First
possession and damages, petitioner was charged Division, and the obvious scurrilous
for violating Canon 11 of the Code of Professional characterizations of the respondent judge.
Responsibility. He characterized the decision of
respondent Judge as having been crafted in Because of his anger for the unfavorable court
order to fool the winning party; as a decision, he used unnecessary, offensive and
hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs favour; one abrasive language is totally uncalled for and
with perfidious character; and one which "you jeopardizes the high esteem in courts while
could have sworn it was the Devil who dictated undermining the confidence of the people in the
it". integrity of the members of the Court.
Tiongco was ordered to pay fine of Php 5,000
Tiongco described respondent Judge as a liar, plus warning.
perjurer or blasphemer. He also called the
respondent judge a "robber," "rotten
>>>>>>
manipulator," "abettor" of graft and corruption,
Sanggalang vs IAC
and "cross-eyed."
177 SCRA 87
Issue:
Facts: After the court ruled against his clients in
Is Tiongcos act of criticizing the Judges
the case, Att. Sangco filed a motion for
judgment a violation of Canon 11 of the Code of
reconsideration which became grounds for
Professional Responsibility?
charges for contempt against the latter due to
his disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled for
Ruling:
remarks and for suggesting that the Court might
Yes. Tiongcos criticism of the Judges
have been guilty of graft and corruption. In the
judgment violated Canon 11 of the Code of
same motion, he questioned the Court's
Professional Responsibility, as well as the
competence and integrity and raised its manifest
lawyers oath and Rules of court.
partiality towards the opposing party.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Issue:
Responsibility states that a lawyer shall observe
Are the actuations of Atty. Sancgo proper
and maintain the respect due to the courts and
grounds for contempt?
to judicial matters, and should insist on similar
conduct by others
Ruling:
Yes, the acts of Atty. Sangco are punishable
The duty contemplated in Canon 11 is closely
under Section 1, of Rule 71, of the Rules of Court
entwined with his vow in the lawyers oath to
treating Direct contempt.
conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity
to the courts, and his duty under Section 20(b)
Using intemperate and accusatory language
of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court to observe and
against the court by a lawyer, who is likewise an
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
officer of the court, should not go unpunished.
and judicial officers.
His suggestions that the Court might be guilty of
graft and corruption is not only unbecoming , but
It does not, however, follow that just because a
comes as an open assault to the Courts honor
lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot
and integrity, who upon rendering its judgment
criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen,
only yielded to records alone and not to outside
and it is even his duty as an officer of the court
influences. Being a former judge Atty Sangco
to avail of such right. Nevertheless, such a right
could have demonstrated due empathy to the Despite that, it believes that like any other right,
courts in rendering judgments. the right of a lawyer to comment on or criticize
the decision of a judge or his actuation is not
Apart from such, his act also constitutes unlimited. A publication in or outside of court
malpractice as the term is defined by Canon 11 tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which influence the courts in administering justice,
states that A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND destroy public confidence in them or bring them
MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS in any way into disrepute, transcends the limits
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS. of fair comment. Such publication or intemperate
and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the
As well as of Rule 11.03 and Rule 11.04 dictating lawyers duty to respect the courts, and are
that a lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, violative of Canon 11, Rule 11.04 and 11.05 of
offensive or menacing language or behavior the code of professional responsibility.
before the Courts, and not to attribute to a
Judge motives not supported by the record or Thus records of the said reports were attached to
have no materiality to the case. the personal record of Atty Gomez, though
without further action.
Atty Sangco is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for three (3) months and ORDERED to pay a >>>
fine of P 500.00. Maceda vs. Vasquez (G.R. No. 102781)

Facts: Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed

In re: Gomez a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
43 Phil 376 against petitioner RTC Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that
Facts: petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of
In 1921, Atty. Feliciano Gomez lost an election service by certifying that all civil and criminal
protest case for the governorship of Laguna filed cases which have been submitted for decision for
by Juan Cailles which reached the Supreme a period of 90 days have been determined and
Court. Thereafter, at a public meeting at a fiesta decided on or before January 31, 1989, when in
celebration Gomez remarked that the Supreme truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no
Court sided with Cailles as a favor to then decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10
Governor-General Wood who was a friend of criminal cases that have been submitted for
Cailles. Said statements were published in a decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that
newspaper and likewise substantiated by four petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of
affidavits. service for 17 months.

ISSUE: Issue: Whether or not the action of the

Whether or not Gomez is guilty of contempt? respondent is filed in the proper venue?

HELD: Held:
No. The Supreme Court decided not hold Gomez
for contempt. No. criminal complaint against the judge arises
from his administrative duties should be filed in
The Supreme Court ruled that litigants and the Supreme Court.
lawyers should not be held to too strict an
account for words said in the heat of the A judge who falsifies his certificate of service is
moment, because of dissatisfaction at losing administratively liable to the SC for serious
cases, and that the big way is for the court to misconduct and criminally liable to the State
condone even contemptuous language. The rule under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious
in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that act.
courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the
same criticism as other people. In the absence of any administrative action
taken against him by the Court with regard to his
certificates of service, the investigation being change the material dates stated in the
conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into Information which the Petitioner opposed stating
the Courts power of administrative supervision the
over all courts and its personnel, in violation of amendment was substantial in nature, and
the doctrine of separation of powers. allowing the same would be a violation of his
right to be informed of the cause and nature of
Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively the accusation against him.
vests in the SC administrative supervision over
all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding Issue:
Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal Is the contention of Gabionza meritorious?
trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it is only
the SC that can oversee the judges and court Ruling:
personnels compliance with all laws, and take No, the contention of Gabionza is not
the proper administrative action against them if meritorious. The RTC granted the motion and
they commit any violation thereof. No other allowed amendment of the Information, ruling
branch of government may intrude into this that the amendment pertained only to matters of
power, without running afoul of the doctrine of form. It is not even necessary to state in the
separation of powers. Information the precise time the offense was
committed.
Respondent's act is violative of Rule 11.05
stating that a lawyer shall submit grievances Jurisprudence allows amendments to information
against a Judge to the proper authorities only. so long as: (a) it does not deprive the accused of
Complaints against Judges and Justices should be the right to invoke prescription;(b) it does not
filed in the SC through OCA (office of Court affect or alter the nature of the offense originally
Adminsitrator) if case is administrative in nature; charged (c) it does not involve a change in the
and to the Office of Ombudsman if complaint is basic theory of the prosecution so as to require
criminal and not purely administrative in nature. the accused to undergo any material change or
But criminal complaints against Judges in modification in his defense;(d) it does not expose
connection with their duties should be lodged in the accused to a charge which would call for a
the SC, not in the Ombudsman. higher penalty;and, (5) it does not cause surprise
nor deprive the accused of an opportunity to
In this case, the criminal complaint against the meet the new averment.
judge arises from his administrative duties, and
thus should be rightful for the Ombudsman to This is to ensure speedy and efficient
defer action and refer the same to the SC for administration of Justice in accordance with
determination whether said judge or court Canon 12 of the code of professional
employee had acted within the scope of their responsibility.
administrative duties.
In the case at bar, it is clear that the questioned
>> amendment is one of form and not of substance.
Gabionza vs CA The allegation of time when an offense is
G.R. 140311; March 30, 2001 committed is a matter of form, and is not a
material ingredient of the offense. Thus,
Facts: petitioner's argument that the amendment
Petitioner Gabionza was accused for violating prejudiced his rights is untenable.
Sec. 22, pars. (a) and (d), in relation to Sec. 28,
par. (e), of RA 1161 for willfully' unlawfully failing Petitioner failed to adduce any evidence in
and refusing to remit to the Social Security support of his allegation that the amendment
System (SSS) contributions for SSS, Medicare would adversely affect his rights. In fact, the
and Employee Compensation (EC) and its penalty imposed for this violation is constant at
corresponding penatly. Four years after his six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12)
arraignment, the public prosecutor filed a Motion years, regardless of the number of infractions.
for Leave of Court to Amend Information, to