1.

In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) court and as a citizen, to criticize in properly respectful
Rule 11.03 Duty to abstain from scandalous, offensive or terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts
menacing language or behavior before the Courts and judges.

FACTS: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen's "Petition to As a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is
Surrender Lawyer's Certificate of Title," filed on expected not only to exercise the right, but also to
September 25, 1967, in protest against what he therein consider his duty to avail of such right. No law may
asserts is "a great injustice committed against his client abridge this right, nor is he “professionally answerable for
by this Supreme Court." He indicts this Court, in his own a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which
phrase, as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen.
to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until
own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations further orders.
of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he
continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's 2. Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 8
"unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial March 2011
victims before the altar of hypocrisy."
Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 1, 10,11,13) ; Bar
He alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the Disciplinary Proceeding; Academic Freedom; Freedom of
members of this Court, saying "that justice as Speech
administered by the present members of the Supreme FACTS: Allegations of this intellectual offense were hurled
Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty.Romel R. Bagares
vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in
forum," so that "the people may know of the silent the caseof Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.
injustice's committed by this Court," and that "whatever The allegations of plagiarism centered on Justice
mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed Del Castillo’s discussion of theprinciples of jus cogens
must never be repeated." He ends his petition with a and erga omnes.
prayer that a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court On August 9, 2010, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, et al.
to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney and members of the faculty of the UPCollege of Law
counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any published a statement on the allegations of
time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and plagiarism andmisrepresentation relative to the
confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the Court’s decision in Vinuya v. ExecutiveSecretary.
practice of the noblest profession. Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed
by its dean, Atty.Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, calls for the
The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case resignation of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in theface of
entitled Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero, in allegations of plagiarism in his work.
which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant. The In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del
trial court, after due hearing, rendered judgment against Castillo’s explanation onhow he cited the primary sources
his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received a of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a
copy of the decision. Twenty days later, or on July 5, 1966, contraryconclusion to those of the authors of the articles
he moved for its reconsideration. He served on the supposedly plagiarized
adverse counsel a copy of the motion, but did not notify They went further by directly accusing the Court of
the latter of the time and place of hearing on said motion. perpetrating extraordinary injustice bydismissing the
Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for petition of the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive
execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," Secretary. Theyfurther attempt to educate this Court on
the trial court denied both motions. To prove that he did how to go about the review of the case.
serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for
reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a ISSUE: WoN respondent Attys. as law professors and officers
second motion for reconsideration to which he attached of the Court violates the CPR?
the required registry return card. This second motion for
reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the HELD: YES, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, et al. as members
trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. of UP College of Law are directedto SHOWCAUSE why
Almacen himself, who, earlier, that is, on August 22, 1966, they should not be disciplined for violation of Canons 10,
had already perfected the appeal. Because the plaintiff 11, 13 of CPR.RULING: The publication of a statement
interposed no objection to the record on appeal and by the faculty of the UP College of Law regarding
appeal bond, the trial court elevated the case to the Court theallegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation
of Appeals. in the Supreme Court was totallyunnecessary,
uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance. Of
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen must public knowledge isthe ongoing investigation precisely to
surrender his Lawyer’s Certificate of Title. determine the truth of such allegations. The Court
could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the
HELD: It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the faculty’s less thanobjective comments except to discredit
courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the the Decision in the Vinuya case and underminethe Court’s
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the honesty, integrity and competence. As if the case on the
maintenance of its supreme importance. Well-recognized comfort women’sclaims is not controversial enough, the
therefore is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and inviteresentment
 against a resolution that would not reverse the said Justice Mendoza did not appear as falsely represented in
decision. This runscontrary to their obligation as law the previous copies of the Statement submitted by Dean
professors and officers of the Court to be the first to Leonen and Atty. Roque. Also, Atty. Armovit signed the
uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they Statement although his name was not included among the
owe fidelity according to theoath they have taken as signatories in the copies submitted to the Court.
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration The Court en banc issued a Resolution directing the UP law
ofjustice. Their actions likewise constitute violations of faculty members to show cause why they should not be
Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules1.02 and 11.05 of the disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons
CPR. 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of
Facts: Professional Responsibility. Dean Leonen was likewise
On April 28, 2010, the decision in Vinuya, et al. vs. Executive directed to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily
Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) was promulgated with dealt with for violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02
Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo as ponencia. Attys. and 10.03 for submitting a dummy which is not a true and
Roque and Bagares, counsels for Vinuya et al. (Malaya faithful reproduction of the UP Law Faculty Statement.
Lolas), sought for reconsideration . Subsequently, they 35 of the respondent UP Law professors (excluding Prof.
filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration where Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul Vasquez) filed a Common
they raised for the first time their charge of plagiarism as Compliance alleging that they acted with noble intentions
one of the grounds for reconsideration of the Vinuya when they signed the Statement. They assert that their
decision. action was in exercise of their constitutionally protected
The works allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were freedom of expression and academic freedom.
namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent's article With respect to the inclusion of Justice Mendoza’s name as
"A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;" (2) Christian J. Tams' among the signatories in Restoring Integrity II (copy)
book Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International when in fact he did not sign Restoring Integrity I (original),
Law; and (3) Mark Ellis' article "Breaking the Silence: On Dean Leonen attributed the mistake to a
Rape as an International Crime." miscommunication involving his administrative officer.
Counsels further assert that the plagiarized works were Prof. Owen Lynch, a visiting professor at the UP College of
twisted as they were used as basis for the assailed Law, manifests that he is a member of the bar of the State
judgment when in truth the works actually support the of Minnesota.
case of the Malaya Lolas.
After the filing of the Supplemental MR, an article entitled "SC Held:
justice plagiarized parts of ruling on comfort women," was
posted on the Newsbreak website. The same article Freedom of Expression
appeared on the GMA News TV website. Atty. Roque also 1. Freedom of expression is not a defense in administrative
wrote an article entitled "Plagiarized and Twisted" in his cases against lawyers for using intemperate speech in
column in the Manila Standard Today wherein he claimed open court or in court submissions. The same applies to
that Prof. Evan Criddle confirmed that his work had been the respondents' invocation of academic freedom.
plagiarized. 2. Freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional
Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in freedoms, is not absolute and needs on occasion to be
reply to the charge of plagiarism. The letter was referred balanced with the equally important public interest in the
to the Ethics Committee formed by the court to investigate maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the
the matter. administration of justice. The right to criticize, which is
The Supreme Court received a letter from Dr. Mark Ellis who guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of expression
wrote to to raise his concern on the use of his work to in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised
support a conclusion in opposition to the intention of his responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding
arguments. obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but
On August 9, 2010, a statement entitled "Restoring Integrity: freedom with responsibility.
A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the 3. A lawyer, just like any citizen, has the right to criticize and
Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of comment upon actuations of public officers, including
Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" judicial authority. However, such criticism of the courts,
(the Statement) was posted in several online sites. The whether done in court or outside of it, must conform to
statement was also posted at the UP College of Law's standards of fairness and propriety. (citing In Re Almacen)
bulletin board and at said college website. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but
UP College of Law Dean Marvic Leonen submitted a copy of members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly
the Statement to the SC, through Chief Justice Corona. affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers
The cover letter signed by him stated that the statement whose statements regarding the courts and fellow
was signed by 38 members of the UP College of Law lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded
faculty. The copy of the Statement (Restoring Integrity II) the limits of fair comment and common decency.
attached to the cover letter did not contain the actual 4. The accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the
signatures but only stated the names of 37 UP Law Statement exceeded the limits of fair comment and cannot
professors with the notation (SGD.) appearing beside be deemed as protected free speech. To be clear, It was
each name. not the fact that respondents had criticized a decision of
In fact, when the original signed Statement (Restoring Integrity the Court, but the manner of the criticism and the
I) was required to be presented, the Ethics Committee contumacious language by which respondents, who are
noted that only 37 of the 81 UP faculty members actually not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have
signed the same. In particular, the signature of former SC expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the
 said pending case that gave rise to the Show Cause Violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 (Good Faith Not A Defense
Resolution. )
5. The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the 11. No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the
courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for
In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into
citizen at another.Thus, statements made by an attorney disrepute. This doctrine, which we have repeatedly upheld
in private conversations or communications or in the in previous cases , should be applied in this case with
course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting more reason, as the respondents, not parties to the
language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the Vinuya case, denounced the Court and urged it to change
administration of justice, may subject the attorney to its decision therein, in a public statement using
disciplinary action. (citing In Re Almacen) contumacious language, which with temerity they
subsequently submitted to the Court for "proper
Criticism of a Case Sub Judice disposition."
6. What the courts found objectionable was not the 12. Whether or not respondents’ views regarding the
circumstance that respondents expressed a belief that plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case had valid basis was
Justice Del Castillo was guilty of plagiarism but rather their wholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech
expression of that belief as "not only as an established and conduct. These are two separate matters to be
fact, but a truth” when it was "of public knowledge that properly threshed out in separate proceedings. The ethics
there was an ongoing investigation precisely to determine case of Justice Del Castillo was still pending at the time of
the truth of such allegations." the filing of respondents’ submissions in this
7. The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a administrative case. As respondents themselves admit,
pending cause, respecting the same, has always been they are neither parties nor counsels in the ethics case
considered as misbehavior, tending to obstruct the against Justice Del Castillo. It is not proper procedure for
administration of justice, and subjects such persons to respondents to bring up their plagiarism arguments here
contempt proceedings. Parties have a constitutional right especially when it has no bearing on their own
to have their causes tried fairly in court, by an impartial administrative case.
tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public 13. With respect to the 35 respondents named in the Common
clamor.(citing In re: Vicente Sotto) Compliance, the Court is willing to give them the benefit
8. The Court finds that there was indeed a lack of observance of the doubt that they were for the most part well-
of fidelity and due respect to the Court, particularly when intentioned in the issuance of the Statement. However, it
respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism is established in jurisprudence that where the excessive
in the Vinuya decision and the merits of the Vinuya and contumacious language used is plain and undeniable,
decision itself, at the time of the Statement’s issuance, then good intent can only be mitigating. Where the matter
were still both sub judice or pending final disposition of the is abusive or insulting, evidence that the language used
Court. was justified by the facts is not admissible as a defense.
Respect for the judicial office should always be observed
Academic Freedom and enforced. Said lack or want of intention constitutes at
9. There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates most an extenuation of liability. Thus, the 35 respondents
upon respondents the subject matter they can teach and named in the Common Compliance should,
the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it is not notwithstanding their claim of good faith, be reminded of
inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom for the their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give
Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary due respect to the courts and to refrain from intemperate
action for contumacious conduct and speech, coupled and offensive language tending to influence the Court on
with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending pending matters or to denigrate the courts and the
case, without observing proper procedure, even if administration of justice.
purportedly done in their capacity as teachers.
10. Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by Violation of Canon 10
respondents in this case. To our mind, the reason that 14. Dean Leonen’s predicament is the fact that he did not from
freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of the beginning submit the signed copy (Restoring Integrity
lawyers applies with greater force to the academic I) to this Court and, instead, submitted Restoring Integrity
freedom of law professors. In view of the broad definition II with its retyped or "reformatted" signature pages. Dean
in Cayetano v. Monsod, lawyers when they teach law are Leonen admits in a footnote that other professors had only
considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike authorized him to indicate them as signatories and had
professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers who not in fact signed the Statement. Thus, at around the time
do not teach law, respondents are bound by their oath to Restoring Integrity II was printed, posted and submitted to
uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, this Court, at least one purported signatory thereto had
their actions as law professors must be measured against not actually signed the same. That is precisely tantamount
the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to making it appear to this Court that a person or persons
to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law participated in an act when such person or persons did
professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they not.
are lawyers. 15. Nevertheless, in due consideration of Dean Leonen’s
professed good intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to
admonish Dean Leonen for failing to observe full candor
 and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required Note:
under Canon 10. CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
Foreign Lawyers are Outside the Disciplinary Power of the processes.
Supreme Court RULE 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed
16. As for Prof. Lynch, since he is a member of the Bar of the at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
State of Minnesota and, therefore, not under the legal system.
disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused
from these proceedings. CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court.
Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Liability Imposed Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent
without Need of a Hearing ) to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow
17. This is not an indirect contempt proceeding and Rule 71 the Court to be misled by any artifice.
(which requires a hearing) has no application to this case. Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
As explicitly ordered in the Show Cause Resolution this misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the
case was docketed as an administrative matter. argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
18. The rule that is relevant to this controversy is Rule 139-B, authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
Section 13, on disciplinary proceedings initiated motu rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert
proprio by the Supreme Court. Under the said provision, as a fact that which has not been proved.
it cannot be denied that a formal investigation, through a Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and
referral to the specified officers, is merely discretionary, shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
not mandatory on the Court. Furthermore, it is only if the
Court deems such an investigation necessary that the CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
procedure in Sections 6 to 11 of Rule 139-A will be due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist
followed. on similar conduct by others.
19. In general, administrative proceedings do not require a RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge
trial type hearing.The essence of due process is simply an to the proper authorities only.
opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an CANON 13 - A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence,
ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
absence of the opportunity to be heard, hence, a party
cannot feign denial of due process where he had been 3. Young v. Batuegas, 403 SCRA 123 (2003)
afforded the opportunity to present his side.
[CANON 10] YOUNG VS BATUEGAS A.C. No. 5379 May 9,
20. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. 2003 ( YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve
a trial of an action or a suit, but is rather an investigation )Facts: YOUNG is the private prosecutor in People of
by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not the Phil v Arana. BATUEGAS, et alare the counsels for
being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a the accused in the said criminal case. On Dec 13, 2000,
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a BATUEGAS filed aManifestation with Motion for Bail alleging
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the that the accused has voluntarily surrendered to aperson in
Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective, authority and, as such, is now under detention. Upon
and the real question for determination is whether or not verification with the NBI,YOUNG discovered that the
the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 (not 13). BATUEGAS,
as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, et alin their defense alleged that on Dec 13, 2000, upon
the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to learning that a warrant of arrest was issuedagainst their
account for his actuations as an officer of the Court with client, they filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail. They
the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal immediately fetchedaccused from Cavite and brought him to
profession and the proper and honest administration of NBI to voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavytraffic,
justice by purging the profession of members who by their they arrived at NBI at 2am the next day. That was
misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to why the Certificate of Detentionindicated that the
be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining accused surrendered on Dec 14, 2000 and not 13. As
to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus to lack of notice,YOUNG being a private prosecutor,
be no occasion to speak of a complainant or a prosecutor. is not entitled to such as only the State and
21. The absence of any formal charge against and/or formal Cityprosecutors should be given notices. Investigating
investigation of an errant lawyer do not preclude the Court Commissioner recommended suspension of6 months. IBP
from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as Commissionon Bar Discipline in a resolution approved said
long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the recommendation. ISSUE: W/N BATUEGAS, ET AL ARE
opportunity to be heard. GUILTY OF FALSEHOOD AND SHOULD
22. Thus, respondents’ requests for a hearing and for access BESUSPENDED HELD: YES, CONCEALED TRUTH RATIO:
to the records of, and evidence presented in [the A lawyer must be a disciple of truth. He swore upon his
plagiarism case against Justice Del Castillo] should be admission that he will do nofalsehood nor consent to the doing
denied for lack of merit. of any in court. As officer of the court, his high vocation is
tocorrectly inform the court upon the law and facts of the case
to aid it in arriving at the correctconclusion. The courts, on the Manifestation with Motion for Bail. Ms. Teofila A. Peña, Clerk
other hand, are entitled to expect only complete honesty III, received the said Motion and noticed that it was set for
fromlawyers appearing and pleading before them. His hearing on December 15, 2000 and the Certificate of
lawyer’s solemn duty is to defend his client,his conduct must Detention was not attached. However, the presiding judge
never be at the expense of truth. In the case at bar, instructed her to receive the Motion subject to the presentation
BATUEGAS, et al feelshort of the duties and responsibilities of the Certificate of Detention before the hearing. Thus, the
expected of the mass members of the bar. Anticipatingthat inclusion of the Motion in the court's calendar on December
their Motion for Bail will be denied by the Court found that it 15, 2000 was authorized by the presiding judge and, thus, was
had no jurisdiction over theperson of the accused, they craftily done by respondent Susa in faithful performance of his
concealed the truth alleging that the accused had ministerial duty.
voluntarilysurrendered. To knowingly allege an untrue
statement in the pleading is a contemptuousconduct In a Resolution dated August 13, 2001,[4] the instant case
that the Court strongly condemns. BATUEGAS, et al violated was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for
their oath when theyresorted to deception. Hence, investigation, report and recommendation or decision.
BATUEGAS, et al should be suspended for 6 months
FACTS On December 7, 2001, the Investigating Commissioner,
On December 29, 2000, Atty. Walter T. Young filed a Verified Rebecca Villanueva-Maala, submitted her report and
Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against Attys. Ceasar G. recommendation as follows:
Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino and Franklin Q.
Susa for allegedly committing deliberate falsehood in court WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, it is
and violating the lawyer's oath.[1] respectfully recommended that Atty. Ceasar G. Batuegas and
Atty. Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino be suspended from the
Complainant is the private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. practice of their profession as a lawyer/member of the Bar for
00-187627 for Murder, entitled "People of the Philippines a period of six (6) months from receipt hereof. The complaint
versus Crisanto Arana, Jr.", pending before the Regional Trial against Atty. Franklin Q. Susa, upon the other hand, is hereby
Court of Manila, Branch 27. On December 13, 2000, recommended dismissed for lack of merit.[5]
respondents Batuegas and Llantino, as counsel for accused,
filed a Manifestation with Motion for Bail, alleging that the The foregoing Report and Recommendation was adopted and
"accused has voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority. approved by the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline in
As such, he is now under detention."[2] Upon personal Resolution No. XV-2002-400, to wit:
verification with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
where accused Arana allegedly surrendered, complainant RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby
learned that he surrendered only on December 14, 2000, as ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and
shown by the Certificate of Detention executed by Atty. Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
Rogelio M. Mamauag, Chief of the Security Management above-entitled case, herein made part of this
Division of the NBI. Resolution/Decision as Annex "A"; and, finding the
recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record
Respondent Susa, the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC of and the applicable laws and rules, and in view of respondents'
Manila, Branch 27, calendared the motion on December 15, commission of deliberate falsehood, Atty. Batuegas and Atty.
2000 despite the foregoing irregularity and other formal Llantino are hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
defects, namely, the lack of notice of hearing to the private six (6) months. The complaint against Atty. Susa is hereby
complainant, violation of the three-day notice rule, and the DISMISSED for lack of merit.[6]
failure to attach the Certificate of Detention which was referred
to in the Motion as Annex "1". We agree with the findings and recommendations of the
Investigating Commissioner. Respondents Batuegas and
Respondents filed their respective comments, declaring that Llantino are guilty of deliberate falsehood.
on December 13, 2000, upon learning that a warrant of arrest
was issued against their client, they filed the Manifestation A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.[7] He swore upon his
with Motion for Bail with the trial court. Then they immediately admission to the Bar that he will "do no falsehood nor consent
fetched the accused in Cavite and brought him to the NBI to to the doing of any in court" and he shall "conduct himself as
voluntarily surrender. However, due to heavy traffic, they a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion
arrived at the NBI at 2:00 a.m. the next day; hence, the with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients."[8]
certificate of detention indicated that the accused surrendered He should bear in mind that as an officer of the court his high
on December 14, 2000. They argued that there was neither vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the
unethical conduct nor falsehood in the subject pleading as facts of the case and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at
their client has voluntarily surrendered and was detained at correct conclusion.[9] The courts, on the other hand, are
the NBI. As regards the lack of notice of hearing, they contend entitled to expect only complete honesty from lawyers
that complainant, as private prosecutor, was not entitled to appearing and pleading before them.[10] While a lawyer has
any notice. Nevertheless, they furnished the State and City the solemn duty to defend his client's rights and is expected
prosecutors copies of the motion with notice of hearing to display the utmost zeal in defense of his client's cause, his
thereof. Moreover, the hearing of a motion on shorter notice conduct must never be at the expense of truth.[11]
is allowed under Rule 15, Sec. 4(2) of the Rules of Court.[3]
The Court may disbar or suspend a lawyer for misconduct,
For his part, respondent Susa argues in his comment that he whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows
was no longer in court when his co-respondents filed the him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity, and
good demeanor, thus proving unworthy to continue as an they are SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
officer of the court.[12] six (6) months with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Evidently, respondent lawyers fell short of the duties and
responsibilities expected from them as members of the bar. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal
Anticipating that their Motion for Bail will be denied by the records of Attys. Ceasar G. Batuegas and Miguelito Nazareno
court if it found that it had no jurisdiction over the person of V. Llantino in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies
the accused, they craftily concealed the truth by alleging that thereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
accused had voluntarily surrendered to a person in authority
and was under detention. Obviously, such artifice was a SO ORDERED.
deliberate ruse to mislead the court and thereby contribute to
injustice. To knowingly allege an untrue statement of fact in 4. Re: Letter dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S.
the pleading is a contemptuous conduct that we strongly Sorreda, 501 SCRA 369 (2006)
condemn. They violated their oath when they resorted to
deception. In an en banc Resolution dated July 22, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-
3-304-SC, the Court adjudged Atty. Noel S. Sorreda guilty of
Respondents contend that their allegation of the accused's contempt of court and violation of the Code of Professional
detention was merely a statement of an ultimate fact which Responsibility for maliciously attacking the Court and its
still had to be proved by evidence at the hearing of the Motion. members for the manner they resolved several cases
That they were able to show that their client was already under mentioned in his letter of February 21, 2005 to then Chief
the custody of the NBI at the hearing held on December 15, Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. For this infraction, the Court
2000 does not exonerate them. The fact remains that the indefinitely suspended Atty. Sorreda as a member of the Bar
allegation that the accused was in the custody of the NBI on and prohibited him from engaging in the practice of law unless
December 13, 2000 was false. the Court orders otherwise.

In Comia vs. Antona, we held: In a subsequent letter of February 4, 2006, Atty. Sorreda
continued with his old obnoxious ways and, in a virtual repeat
It is of no moment that the accused eventually surrendered to of what he said previously but with more venom this time, Atty.
the police authorities on the same date "tentatively" scheduled Sorreda embarked on another assault against the dignity of
for the hearing of the application for bail. To our mind, such the Court, adding that he "has not the slightest intention" of
supervening event is of no bearing and immaterial; it does not apologizing for his misdeeds "either now or in the future."
absolve respondent judge from administrative liability Worse still, he even dared the Court to up the penalty of
considering that he should not have accorded recognition to suspension to disbarment.
the application for bail filed on behalf of persons who, at that
point, were devoid of personality to ask such specific In the expectation that Atty. Sorreda would mend his ways if
affirmative relief from the court.[13] given another chance, the Court merely imposed a strong
warning. Accompanying the warning, however, was the
In this jurisdiction, whether bail is a matter of right or caveat that any further derogatory remark from him, be it
discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given embodied in a letter or pleading, shall warrant an even more
to the prosecutor or fiscal, or at least, he must be asked for severe sanction, of which there is none other than disbarment.
his recommendation.[14]
In his present MANIFESTATION AND MOTION under date of
In the case at bar, the prosecution was served with notice of July 18, 2006, Atty. Sorreda has raised a step further the level
hearing of the motion for bail two days prior to the scheduled of his obstinacy and defiance. In a clearly insulting tone
date. Although a motion may be heard on short notice, reflecting a remorseless and boorish person, he states that he
respondents failed to show any good cause to justify the non- has from the start defied the suspension order meted him by
observance of the three-day notice rule. Verily, as lawyers, the Court and has continued with his professional practice as
they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to a lawyer both in the lower courts and before this Tribunal.
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.[15]
The Court's patience has been stretched to the limit by Atty.
Finally, we are in accord with the Investigating Commissioner Sorreda's arrogance and disrespect. At the minimum,
that respondent clerk of court should not be made members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect.
administratively liable for including the Motion in the calendar By taking the lawyer's oath, they become guardians of the law
of the trial court, considering that it was authorized by the and an indispensable instrument in the orderly and impartial
presiding judge. However, he is reminded that his administration of justice. Deliberately veering away from the
administrative functions, although not involving the discretion path which a lawyer ought to follow as called for by his oath
or judgment of a judge, are vital to the prompt and sound and his profession cannot be tolerated by this Court as the
administration of justice.[16] Thus, he should not hesitate to disciplining authority. So it must be here. Atty. Sorreda has
inform the judge if he should find any act or conduct on the proven himself to be incorrigible. By his demeanor, as
part of lawyers which are contrary to the established rules of demonstrated by his penchant for addressing malicious letters
procedure. and pleadings to this Court, Atty. Sorreda is unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Attys.
Ceasar G. Batuegas, Miguelito Nazareno V. Llantino are
found guilty of committing deliberate falsehood. Accordingly,
WHEREFORE, Atty. Noel S. Sorreda is DISBARRED from the menacing language or behavior before
practice of law. Let his name be stricken off the Roll of the Courts.
Attorneys.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not
attribute to a Judge motives not
This resolution shall take effect immediately. Let copies
supported by the record or have no
thereof furnished the Bar Confidant, to be appended to Atty. materiality to the case.
Sorreda's personal record; the National Office and the
Quezon City Chapter of the IBP; the Philippine Judges The Court reviewed the records of these cases and find the
Association; and all the courts of the land for their information present administrative complaints of
and guidance. Atty. Balaoing against Judge Calderon, Jr. and his OIC
Leonor Maniago, and against Judge Maliwanag, just as
SO ORDERED. frivolous and baseless as the previous ones. Like before, his
present complaints are based on his personal interpretation of
5. Balaoing v. Calderon, 221 SCRA 533 (1993) the law and not on material allegations of fact, substantiated
by solid evidence. Complainant Balaoing's wanton disregard
of the Court’s stern warning not to again file baseless and
Facts:
frivolous complaints which only clog the already full dockets
of this Court instead of serve the ends of justice, and his
Atty. Eduardo Balaoing filed several complaints against
adamant refusal to abide by the above-quoted provisions of
different judges from Olongapo, Zambales. Among those the Code of Professional Responsibility which serve to
were Hon. Jaime Dojillo (MTC), Hon. Santiago Maliwanag regulate a lawyer's conduct in this jurisdiction, have shown
(RTC), Hon. Leopoldo Calderon (RTC6). The complaints filed complainant Balaoing's unfitness to hold the license to
were about the alleged violations and errors of the judges in practice law.
deciding some cases wherein Atty. Balaoing was either a
counsel for the plaintif or a plaintiff himself. Some of the This is the latest of the several administrative complaints filed
alleged violations of Judge Calderon was grave abuse of by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against different judges of
authority and malicious delay in the administration of justice Olongapo City and Zambales.
and allowing multiple postponement of the hearings only
informing the complainant 3 hours before schedule. The The first complaint was dated February 17, 1989, entitled
complainant also alleges that Judge Maliwanag acted with "Atty. Balaoing vs. Hon. Jaime Dojillo as Judge of
gross ignorance of the law by issuing unjust patent order. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City, et al." Said
complainant also used foul words such as notorious, insane complaint was dismissed for lack of merit through this
and swindler addressed to Leonor Maniago, a court Court's Resolution dated September 18, 1990. Further,
employee. Balaoing also asserts that the researcher of Judge Atty. Balaoing was required to show cause why he should
Calderon, Assistant Clerk Jaime Dojillo, receives not be disciplinarily dealt with for having suppressed
compensation from Mayor Gordon in addition to his salary for certain material facts of which he was charged with
his position in Court. Lastly, Judge Calderon and Dojillo knowledge, and for having engaged in forum shopping.
frequently drinks with and fraternizes with Mayor Gordon The On September 26, 1990, Atty. Balaoing submitted his
respondent judges, through their Comments, denied such "Explanation and Motion for Reconsideration." In a
allegations. The complainant has been sternly warned that Resolution 1 of the Court En Banc, said motion for
filing of similar infractions will be dealt with more severely. In reconsideration was DENIED, his explanation was
addition, complainant has also been previously suspended for DECLARED UNSATISFACTORY and he was
a period of one year. Despite such warning, Balaoing has SEVERELY CENSURED for having instituted a patently
continued filing complaints against judges and other members unfounded and frivolous administrative action, and
of the court for their alleged infractions. WARNED that the commission by him of the same or
similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.
Issue:
The second administrative complaint filed by Atty. Eduardo R.
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Baloing are violative of the
Balaoing was against Judge Santiago Maliwanag, RTC,
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Branch 71, Iba, Zambales, charging them with grave
Held: misconduct for their alleged failure and refusal to issue the
corresponding writ of execution (pending appeal) prayed
Yes. The acts of complainant Balaoing run counter to the for by complainant in his motion filed in Civil Case No.
explicit mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to 983-1 (CA-G.R. No. 01234), entitled "TEOFILO ZABALA,
wit: et al. vs. EUGENIO BUENO". The Court was disturbed by
complainant Balaoing's unrestrained use of unsavory,
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL even defamatory and offensive language against
OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE respondent Judge. One glaring example narrates: ". . . It
RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS
is well to advise Judge Maliwanag not to be wearing his
AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
brief (short) while in his chamber during office hours; it is
SHOULD INSISTS ON SIMILAR
CONDUCT BY OTHERS. downright undignified, especially so when his body has
traces of fungus, which was have been afflicted during his
xxx xxx xxx 26 years as Assistant City Fiscal of Olongapo City, a dirty
city." (This was vehemently denied by respondent Judge.)
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain The Court, in a Resolution 2 En Banc, dated December 4,
from scandalous, offensive or 1990, resolved to:
 c. In Civil Case No. 157-0-89, -- where complainant is the
(1) DISMISS the complaint; plaintiff, respondent Judge in cahoots with his Deputy
Sheriff, unlawfully prevented the implementation of the
(2) SUSPEND complainant from the practice of law for one (1) Writ of Possession;
year; and
d. In Civil Case No. 253-0-90, -- where complainant is the
(3) IMPOSE upon complainant a FINE of ONE THOUSAND Petitioner, the application for the immediate issuance of
PESOS (P1,000.00), for Violation of the Canons of the mandatory injunction was filed on April 27, 1990. To date
Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning the same has not yet been acted upon by the respondent
that subsequent similar infractions shall be dealt with Judge." 4
more severely.
A second letter-complaint 5 dated October 5, 1990, was again
Notwithstanding the above warnings, censure and suspension filed by Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing against the same Judge
from the practice of law for one (1) year, Atty. Eduardo R. Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and his Officer-in-Charge (OIC)
Balaoing is again before this Court with more Leonor Maniago charging them both with misconduct,
administrative complaints filed against not only one, but grave abuse of authority and malicious delay in the
two judges, the Honorable Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. and administration of justice relative to Civil Case No. 201-0-
the Honorable Santiago Maliwanag, of Olongapo City and 89, entitled "Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Santiago Maliwanag
Zambales, respectively. and Romeo Enriquez." Complainant Balaoing, who is the
plaintiff in both cases, alleges that respondent Judge
On September 25, 1990, Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing filed a abused his authority by refusing to declare in default the
sworn letter-complaint 3 against Judge Leopoldo T. defendants in the above-entitled cases despite their
Calderon, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, repeated failure to attend the pre-trial conferences and to
Olongapo City, for misconduct, grave abuse of authority submit their pre-trial briefs. Complainant further avers that
and malicious delay in the administration of justice, at the scheduled hearing, on October 5, 1990, respondent
allegedly committed as follows: Judge did not call complainant's case, and was told only
three (3) hours later that the reason was because of the
"Complainant alleges that in the matter of implementing the motion filed by him for respondent Judge's inhibition,
Supreme Court Circular mandating continuous trial, there which the latter allegedly refused to resolve.
is no way for it to succeed in so far as respondent Judge
is concerned since the latter does not follow the Circular With respect to the other respondent OIC Leonor Maniago,
and merely treats it as directory; that at the start of court complainant Balaoing alleges that when he came out of
sessions, it has been the practice of respondent Judge to the courtroom, he was castigated by the former for
automatically grant postponements and deferments of the allegedly calling her notorious, swindler, insane, etc.
hearing of cases to a later hour whenever his OIC, Leonor
Maniago, makes a manifestation in open court that a Respondent Judge Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. filed his
certain lawyer or party called up requesting that his/her Comment 6 on November 13, 1991. He asserts that the
case be postponed or be called later in the day; that present administrative complaint filed against him by
respondent Judge drinks a lot with lawyers close to Mayor complainant Balaoing was precipitated by incidents in
Gordon and fraternizes with them openly; that with Civil Case No. 190-0-89 entitled "Atty. Eduardo R.
respect to respondent's personal driver, the latter receives Balaoing vs. Eliseo Gavilan, et al." for Damages, wherein
his salary both from Mayor Gordon as a casual employee defendant Gavilan defaulted. All the other cases
and from the Supreme Court as a judicial aide; and, that mentioned in the letter-complaint were allegedly included
respondent Judge sanctions the set up of having his legal to merely embellish the charges.
researcher, Jaime Dojildo, Jr., to work under the
supervision of an OIC who, according to complainant, is The factual backdrop of the Gavilan case shows that
grossly inefficient and a notorious swindler with no complainant Balaoing won in a foreclosure case against
background in law. one Eliseo Gavilan. After the foreclosed properties (a
house and lot) were sold in a public auction, where
Complainant further alleges that respondent Judge has been complainant Balaoing was the highest bidder, a Certificate
maliciously delaying the disposition of several cases of Sale was issued and the same was registered.
pending in his sala. Respondent Judge, however, allegedly prevented the
implementation of the writ of possession, to the prejudice
a. Civil Case No. 418-0-88, -- where complainant is the of complainant Balaoing. In his Comment, respondent
counsel for the plaintiff, was filed in 1988. Since the Judge explained that the reason why he quashed the writ
respondent Judge allowed the defendants to keep on of possession he earlier issued in favor of complainant
postponing the hearings, to date, the case remains Balaoing was due to the fact that Gavilan's widow, Alice,
pending, without any hearing, for more than one (1) year; and her children, were residing in the foreclosed
properties and, more importantly, the period to redeem
b. Sp. Proc. No. 285, -- where complainant is the counsel for the said properties had not yet expired. This action of
the Petitioner, the case was submitted for decision on (sic) respondent Judge allegedly infuriated complainant
September 1989. To date, no decision has yet been Balaoing, hence, his filing of several suits, one after the
rendered on the case to the prejudice of the petitioner who other, against respondent Judge, namely:
is now very old and sickly;
"a) a Motion for Inhibition of respondent Judge in the Gavilan Court, upon his request, the Executive Judge allowed him
case and in the other cases mentioned in his present to do researches for me. He is now a Trial Attorney in the
administrative complaint, alleging, among other things, PAO.
that respondent Judge is guilty of "mental dishonesty" and
"grossness of ignorance of the laws;" 8. The undersigned has conducted the trial of cases and had
disposed of the same consistent with the Rules of Court
b) a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, to prevent and various Supreme Court rulings and circulars . . ." 7
respondent Judge from further acting in the Gavilan case
and to nullify the Order of the Quashal of the Writ of Other respondent OIC Leonor Maniago adopted the
Possession rendered in his favor; allegations in respondent Judge's Comment, and alleged
further that she has "faithfully performed her duties and
c) Civil Case No. 425-0-90, entitled "Balaoing vs. Judge obligations under the law to administer justice in
Leopoldo Calderon, Jr.," for Damages, the causes of accordance with her authority and without any impartiality,
action of which were anchored on the events that (sic) whatsoever." 8
transpired in the Gavilan case; and
Consolidated with this administrative case is A.M. No. R-676-
d) a Petition to cite respondent Judge in contempt filed with RTJ, entitled "Atty. Eduardo R. Balaoing vs. Hon.
the Court of Appeals for expunging his motion for Santiago Maliwanag," wherein the former charges the
inhibition. latter with gross ignorance of the law for allegedly issuing
a patently unjust order.
When the redemption period in the Gavilan case had expired
without the heirs redeeming the property, respondent Respondent Judge Maliwanag, in his Comment dated
Judge issued a writ of possession in favor of complainant September 2, 1986, denied the charge and alleged
Balaoing. But up to the present time, complainant among others, that his order was issued based on
Balaoing has not yet taken possession of the same, jurisprudence, equity and justice, in order to prevent an
showing thereby his apparent disinterest. unjust and inequitable execution of the judgment and an
injustice perpetrated by a lawyer on the unlearned and
As to the application of complainant Balaoing for a writ of poor couple from the barrio.
injunction and restraining order in Civil Case No. 253-0-
90, respondent Judge explains that before he could finish In a Memorandum to then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan,
hearing the evidence of the parties in support of and in dated September 12, 1990, the Office of the Court
opposition to the petition for issuance of the ancillary writ Administrator recommended the dismissal of Atty.
prayed for, complainant Balaoing filed another Motion for Balaoing's complaint against Judge Maliwanag on the
Inhibition of respondent Judge to hear his cases. ground that the same failed "to specifically show and
Nevertheless, respondent Judge denied the motion for the prove the facts constituting the charge of gross ignorance
issuance of the writ prayed for failure of complainant of the law. The allegation of the complainant are not only
Balaoing to show a clear right over the property and that laconic and general but they are also based on mere and
irreparable injury would visit him if the writ would not be personal, interpretations of the complainant on the law
issued. instead of material allegations of facts." 9

With regard to the charge of grave misconduct, respondent As shown above, complainant Balaoing has a penchant for
Judge vehemently denies the same. Thus, filing administrative charges against judges, in whose sala
he has pending cases, whenever the latter render
"7.1 The charge that the undersigned drinks "whisky like decisions or issue orders adverse to him and/or his
water" is a canard. The undersigned is not a habitual clients. In Bagamasbad vs. Judge de Guzman, Jr., 10 We
imbiber of liquor as he suffers from an occasional high have already admonished lawyers to be more prudent in
blood pressure and migraine. Since undersigned became filing administrative charges against members of the
a judge, he never "patronized" with any lawyer. judiciary. It is true that "The lawyer owes 'entire devotion
to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance
7.2 The undersigned applies the Mandatory Continuous Trial and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost
Scheme in his cases. If there were occasional lapses, it learning and ability . . . No fear of judicial disfavor or public
was because of the abnormal case load which is now unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of
more than 500 cases. his duty . . . But it is steadfastly to be borne in mind that
the great trust of the lawyer is to be performed within and
7.3 Court Aide Antonio Faustino does not receive any not without the bounds of the law. The office of attorney
compensation from the City Government. He was, before does not permit, much less does it demand for him for any
being appointed by the Supreme Court to such a position, client, violation of law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.
a casual employee of the City government. Upon his He must obey his own conscience and not that of his
assumption to his present duty, he ceased to receive client. 11 Here, complainant Balaoing went out of bounds
compensation from any other source. when he filed his baseless and frivolous administrative
complaints against respondent Judges Calderon and
xxx xxx xxx Maliwanag, with no other plain and clear purpose than to
harass respondent Judges, and thus, exact vengeance on
7.5 Atty. Jaime Dojillo was the duly appointed researcher in them for rendering adverse judgments against him and his
my sala. When he was promoted as Assistant Clerk of clients.
 6. Masinsin v. Albano, SCRA 631 (1994)
These acts of complainant Balaoing run counter to the explicit
mandate of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to Spouses Miguel and Thelma Masinsin, et al., instituted this
wit: petition for certiorari, prohibition, relief from judgment, as well
as declaratory relief, with prayer for preliminary mandatory
CANON 11 -- A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN injunction, asking us to order the Metropolitan Trial Court
THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO ("MTC") of Manila, Branch X, to cease and desist from further
JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSISTS ON proceeding with Civil Case No. 107203-CV.
SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
This case emerged from an ejectment suit (docketed Civil
xxx xxx xxx Case No. 107203-CV) filed by private respondent Vicente
Cañeda ("Cañeda"), then as plaintiffs, against herein
Rule 11.03 -- A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, petitioners, as defendants, with the Metropolitan Trial Court of
offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Manila (Branch X). After trial, the MTC, on 01 July 1985,
Courts. rendered judgment; thus:

Rule 11.04 -- A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered
not supported by the record or have no materiality to the ordering the defendants and all persons claiming right under
case. them to vacate the premises and to remove their
house/apartment and surrender possession of the subject
We have painstakingly reviewed the records of these cases land to the plaintiff; to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P100.00
and find the present administrative complaints of Atty. a month from January 1987 as the reasonable compensation
Balaoing against Judge Calderon, Jr. and his OIC Leonor for the use and occupation of the premises until the land is
Maniago, and against Judge Maliwanag, just as frivolous actually vacated, and the costs of suit. 1
and baseless as the previous ones. Like before, his
present complaints are based on his personal No appeal having been taken therefrom, the judgment
interpretation of the law and not on material allegations of became final and executory. On 22 August 1985, petitioners
fact, substantiated by solid evidence. This We cannot filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of
countenance. Manila (Branch XXXII) seeking the annulment of the aforesaid
decision in the ejectment case and to set aside an order of its
Complainant Balaoing's wanton disregard of Our stern execution. The petition was in due time dismissed. Again, no
warning not to again file baseless and frivolous complaints appeal was taken therefrom.
which only clog the already full dockets of this Court
instead of serve the ends of justice, and his adamant On 07 October 1985, a complaint for "Annulment of Judgment,
refusal to abide by the above-quoted provisions of the Lease Contract and Damages" was filed by petitioners before
Code of Professional Responsibility which serve to the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch XLI) asking, in
regulate a lawyer's conduct in this jurisdiction, have main, for the nullification of the judgment in the ejectment
shown complainant Balaoing's unfitness to hold the case. The complaint was dismissed on the ground of res
license to practice law. The Philippines abounds in judicata. This time, petitioners appealed the dismissal to the
lawyers. But as Justice Malcolm puts it, "the Philippines Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, a writ of execution was issued
do not need so-called lawyers who . . . have no ethical by the MTC for the enforcement of its decision. The writ,
standards, and who are a disgrace to a great and noble however, was held in abeyance when petitioners deposited
profession . . . (F)or what is needed in the Philippines is with the Court of Appeals the sum of P3,000.00 in cash plus
not a greater quantity, but a finer quality, of professional an amount of P100.00 to be paid every month beginning
men and women, . . . who have a sincere understanding February 1987. On 11 March 1987, the Court of Appeals
of the high requirements of the legal profession . . ." 12 affirmed the order of dismissal of the lower court. Petitioners'
Complainant Balaoing has utterly failed to live up to the recourse to this Court was to be of no avail. The petition was
duties and responsibilities of a member of the legal denied, and an entry of judgment was made on 14 July 1987.
profession.
Accordingly, the records were remanded to the MTC for
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the administrative execution. When petitioners refused to remove their house on
complaints are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. the premises in question, upon motion of private respondent,
Complainant Eduardo R. Balaoing is hereby DISBARRED an order of demolition was issued. Shortly thereafter, the
and his name is ordered STRICKEN from the Roll of demolition began. Before the completion of the demolition, a
Attorneys. Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the restraining order was issued by the Regional Trial Court of
Bar Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Manila (Branch XIX) following a petition for certiorari, with
and spread on the personal records of complainant. This preliminary injunction and restraining order, filed by
decision is immediately executory. petitioners. On 23 February 1988, the trial court dismissed the
petition.
SO ORDERED.
Unfazed by the series of dismissals of their complaints and
petitions, petitioners assailed anew the MTC decision in a
petition for certiorari, with preliminary injunction, and for
declaratory relief (docketed Civil Case No. 88-43944) before
the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch XXV), which,
again, issued a restraining order. 2 It appearing that the purpose of this Petition for Review is to
set aside the decision of the respondent Court of Appeals
Private respondent then filed a motion for an alias writ of which affirmed the decision of the lower courts, in order to
execution with the MTC. An ex-parte motion of petitioners for avoid eviction from the disputed premises and to be allowed
the issuance of a second restraining order was this time to acquire the same allegedly under the Community Mortgage
denied by the RTC (Branch XXV). 3 On 23 August 1990, 4 the Program of the National Housing Authority, we find the petition
trial court, ultimately, dismissed the petition with costs against without merit and deny the same. Consequently, the petition
petitioners. is DISMISSED. 5

In this petition, petitioners contend that the MTC of Manila What immediately catches one's attention to this case is the
(Branch X) has lost jurisdiction to enforce its decision, dated evident predilection of petitioners, through different counsel,
01 July 1985, in Civil Case No. 107203, when the property in to file pleadings, one after another, from which not even this
question was proclaimed an area for priority development by Court has been spared. The utter lack of merit of the
the National Housing Authority on 01 December 1987 by complaints and petitions simply evinces the deliberate intent
authority of Presidential Decree 2016. of petitioners to prolong and delay the inevitable execution of
a decision that has long become final and executory.
The petition is totally without merit.
Four times did the petitioners, with the assistance of counsel,
In resolving this issue, we only have to refer to our resolution try to nullify the same MTC decision before different branches
of 01 February 1993 in G.R. No. 98446, entitled, "Spouses of the court, trifling with judicial processes. Never, again,
Thelma R. Masinsin, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.," to should this practice be countenanced. 6
which this case is intimately related, where we ruled:
The lawyer's oath to which we have all subscribed in solemn
. . . The singular question common to both cases submitted agreement in dedicating ourselves to the pursuit of justice, is
for resolution of this court is the implication of Presidential not a mere fictile of words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust
Decree No. 1517, otherwise known as the "Urban Land that we must uphold and keep inviolable. Perhaps, it is time
Reform Law," and its amendments or ramifications embodied we are here reminded of that pledge; thus -
in Proclamation No. 1893, as amended by Proclamation No.
1967 and Presidential Decree No. 2016. All the above statutes LAWYER'S OATH
are being implemented by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board, and the Housing and Urban Development I, . . ., do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the
Coordinating Council, Office of the President. Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its
Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
There is a prejudicial issue the answer to which hangs the the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood
resolution of this case. On May 20, 1992, this Court required nor consent to its commission; I will not wittingly or willingly
the National Housing Authority to submit a Comment on the promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give
status of the program of acquisition by the Government of the aid nor consent to the same; I will not delay any man's cause
land area which includes the disputed property, as part of the for money or malice and will conduct myself as a lawyer
Areas for Priority Development (APD), under the according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all
aforementioned decrees and proclamations. good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients and I impose
upon myself this obligation voluntary, without any mental
In compliance with said order of this Court, Mr. Andres C. reservation or purpose of evasion.
Lingan, Manager of the Metro Manila Project Department of
the National Housing Authority, submitted the following report SO HELP ME GOD. (Emphasis supplied.)
on the status of Lot 6-A, Block 1012, located at No. 1890
Obesis Street, Pandacan, Manila, known as the Carlos We have since emphasized in no uncertain terms that any act
Estate, an APD site. Pertinent portions of the report read: on the part of a lawyer, an officer of the court, which visibly
tends to obstruct, pervert, impede and degrade the
Please be informed that Lot 6-A, Block 1012 located at No. administration of justice is contumacious calling for both an
1890 Obesis St., Pandacan, Manila which is the subject exercise of disciplinary action and warranting application of
matter of the case and located within the Carlos Estate the contempt power. 7
declared as APD site pursuant to Presidential Proclamation
No. 1967, is not for acquisition by NHA. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners'
counsel of record is hereby strongly CENSURED and
The Carlos Estate is located outside of the NHA projects WARNED that a similar infraction of the lawyer's oath in the
under the Zonal Improvement Project (ZIP) and Community future will be dealt with most severely. Double costs against
Mortgage Program (CMP). The site, however, is under the petitioners.
administration of the Presidential Commission on Urban Poor
(PCUP) for acquisition and upgrading. (Emphasis Supplied.) This resolution is immediately executory.

The above information answers the uncertainty concerning SO ORDERED.

the status of the alleged negotiation for the acquisition by the
government of certain areas in Metro Manila. The NHA is
definitely NOT acquiring the said lot for its program.
7. Que v. Revilla, Jr., 607 SCRA 1 (2009) De Vera said he and his group were "greatly disturbed" by the
screenshots rumors from Supreme Court insiders.

Reports said that Supreme Court justices were tied 6-6 over
8. In re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law, with two other justices
Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. de Vera, still undecided and uttered most likely to inhibit, said Plunder
385 SCRA 285 (2003) Watch, a coalition formed by civil society and militant groups
to monitor the prosecution of Estrada.

"We are afraid that the Estrada camp’s effort to coerce, bribe,
or influence the justices ---considering that it has a P500
million slush fund from the aborted power grab that May-will
most likely result in pro-Estrada decision declaring the
Plunder Law either unconstitutional or vague, " the group said.

PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER

Monday, November 19, 2001

SC under pressure from Erap pals, foes

xxx

"People are getting dangerously passionate...emotionally

charged." Said lawyer Leonard de Vera of the Equal Justice
for All Movement and a leading member of the Estrada Resign
movement.

He voiced his concern that a decision by the high tribunal

rendering the plunder law unconstitutional would trigger mass
actions, probably more massive than those that led to People
Power II.

xxx

De Vera warned of a crisis far worse than the "jueteng"

scandal that led to People Power II if the rumor turned out to
be true.
On December 11, 2001, the court En Banc issued the
following Resolution directing respondent Atty. Leonard De "People wouldn’t just swallow any Supreme Court decision
Vera to explain why he should not be cited for indirect that is basically wrong. Sovereignty must prevail."
contempt of court for uttering some allegedly contemptuous
statements in relation to the case involving the WHEREFORE, the court resolved to direct Atty. Leonard De
constitutionality of the Plunder Law (Republic Act No. 7080)1 Vera to explain within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days
which was then pending resolution: from notice why he should not be punished for contempt of
court.
Quoted hereunder are newspaper articles with contemptuous
statements attributed to Atty. Leonard De Vera concerning the SO ORDERED.2
Plunder Law case while the same was still pending before the
Court. The statements are italicized for ready identification: In his Answer, respondent admitted the report in the
November 6, 2002 issue of the Inquirer that he "suggested
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER that the Court must take steps to dispel once and for all these
ugly rumors and reports" that "the Court would vote in favor of
Tuesday, November 6, 2001 or against the validity of the Plunder Law" to protect the
credibility of the Court.3 He explained therein:
Erap camp blamed for oust-Badoy maneuvers
(4) In short, the integrity of the Court, including the names of
Plunder Law the Honorable Members who were being unfairly dragged and
maliciously rumored to be in favor or against one side of the
De Vera asked the Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it issue, was being viciously attacked. To remain silent at this
would vote in favor of a petition filed by Estrada’s lawyers to time when the Honorable Court was under siege by what
declare the plunder law unconstitutional for its supposed appeared to be an organized effort to influence the court in
vagueness. their decision would and could lend credence to these reports
coming from anonymous sources.4
Respondent admitted further to "having appealed to the
Supreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of Indeed, freedom of speech includes the right to know and
a petition by [former President Joseph] Estrada’s lawyers to discuss judicial proceedings, but such right does not cover
declare the plunder [law] unconstitutional for its supposed statements aimed at undermining the Court’s integrity and
vagueness" because he and his group were "greatly authority, and interfering with the administration of justice.
disturbed" by such rumors.5 Freedom of speech is not absolute, and must occasionally be
balanced with the requirements of equally important public
Anent the November 19, 2001 report in the Inquirer quoting interests, such as the maintenance of the integrity of the
respondent as having said that the people were "getting courts and orderly functioning of the administration of
dangerously passionate...emotionally charged," pending the justice.13
court’s resolution on the petition filed by former President
Estrada assailing the validity of the Plunder Law, respondent Thus, the making of contemptuous statements directed
claimed that such statement was "factually accurate."6 He against the Court is not an exercise of free speech; rather, it
also argued that he was merely exercising his constitutionally is an abuse of such right. Unwarranted attacks on the dignity
guaranteed right to freedom of speech when he said that a of the courts cannot be disguised as free speech, for the
decision by the Court declaring the Plunder Law exercise of said right cannot be used to impair the
unconstitutional "would trigger mass actions, probably more independence and efficiency of courts or public respect
massive than those that led to People Power II."7 therefor and confidence therein.14 It is a traditional conviction
of civilized society everywhere that courts should be immune
Furthermore, respondent justified his statement and said that from every extraneous influence as they resolve the issues
"the people wouldn’t just swallow any Supreme Court decision presented before them.15 The court has previously held that-
that is basically wrong" as an expression of his opinion and as -
"historically correct," citing the ouster of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos through people power in 1986, and the xxx As important as the maintenance of an unmuzzled press
resignation of former President Estrada from office as a result and the free exercise of the right of the citizen, is the
of pressure from the people who gathered at EDSA to demand maintenance of the independence of the judiciary. xxx This
the impeachment process be stopped for being a farce, and Court must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of its
that Estrada step down because he no longer had the business in an orderly manner free from outside interference
mandate of the Filipino people.8 obstructive of its constitutional functions. This right will be
insisted upon as vital to an impartial court, and, as a last
While he admitted to having uttered the aforecited statements, resort, as an individual exercises the right of self-defense, it
respondent denied having made the same to degrade the will act to preserve its existence as an unprejudiced
Court, to destroy public confidence in it and to bring it into tribunal.16
disrepute.9
In People vs. Godoy,17 this Court explained that while a
After a careful consideration of respondent’s arguments, the citizen may comment upon the proceedings and decisions of
Court finds his explanation unsatisfactory and hereby finds the court and discuss their correctness, and even express his
him guilty of indirect contempt of court for uttering statements opinions on the fitness or unfitness of the judges for their
aimed at influencing and threatening the Court in deciding in stations, and the fidelity with which they perform the important
favor of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law. public trusts reposed in them, he has no right to attempt to
degrade the court, destroy public confidence in it, and
The judiciary, as the branch of government tasked to encourage the people to disregard and set naught its orders,
administer justice, to settle justiciable controversies or judgments and decrees. Such publications are said to be an
disputes involving enforceable and demandable rights, and to abuse of the liberty of speech and of the press, for they tend
afford redress of wrongs for the violation of said rights10 must to destroy the very foundation of good order and well-being in
be allowed to decide cases independently, free of outside society by obstructing the course of justice.18
influence or pressure. An independent judiciary is essential to
the maintenance of democracy, as well as of peace and order Clearly, respondent’s utterances pressuring the Court to rule
in society. Further, maintaining the dignity of courts and in favor of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law or risk
enforcing the duty of citizens to respect them are necessary another series of mass actions by the public cannot be
adjuncts to the administration of justice.11 construed as falling within the ambit of constitutionally-
protected speech, because such statements are not fair
Thus, Rule 71, Section 3 (d) of the Revised Rules of Court criticisms of any decision of the Court, but obviously are
authorizes the courts to hold liable for criminal contempt a threats made against it to force the Court to decide the issue
person guilty of conduct that is directed against the dignity or in a particular manner, or risk earning the ire of the public.
authority of the court, or of an act obstructing the Such statements show disrespect not only for the Court but
administration of justice which tends to bring the court into also for the judicial system as a whole, tend to promote
disrepute or disrespect.12 distrust and undermine public confidence in the judiciary, by
creating the impression that the Court cannot be trusted to
Respondent cannot justify his contemptuous statements-- resolve cases impartially and violate the right of the parties to
asking the Court to dispel rumors that it would declare the have their case tried fairly by an independent tribunal,
Plunder Law unconstitutional, and stating that a decision uninfluenced by public clamor and other extraneous
declaring it as such was basically wrong and would not be influences.19
accepted by the people—as utterances protected by his right
to freedom of speech.
It is respondent’s duty as an officer of the court, to uphold the Thus, in the August 31- September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang
dignity and authority of the courts and to promote confidence Patas BATAS, he wrote an article captioned“KADIRI ANG
in the fair administration of justice20 and in the Supreme Court CDO LIVER SPREAD!” In another article, he wrote “IBA
as the last bulwark of justice and democracy. Respondent’s PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO SILIPIN!”which appeared in the
utterances as quoted above, while the case of Estrada vs. same publication in its September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still
Sandiganbayan was pending consideration by this Court, in the same publication, itsSeptember 14-20, 2004 issue, he
belies his protestation of good faith but were clearly made to wrote another article entitled “DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG
mobilize public opinion and bring pressure on the Court. CDO.”

WHEREFORE, Atty. Leonard De Vera is found GUILTY of Respondent continued his tirade against complainant in
indirect contempt of court and is hereby FINED in the amount another tabloid with the several articles. And respondent, in
of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be paid within ten severalepisodes of his television program Kakampi Mo ang
(10) days from receipt of this Decision. Batas aired over UNTV, repeatedly complained of
whatcomplainant claimed to be the “same baseless and
SO ORDERED. malicious allegations/issues” against it.Complainant thus filed
criminal complaints against respondent and several others for
9. Foodsphere v. Mauricio, Jr., 593 SCRA 367 (2009) Libel and Threatening toPublish Libel under Articles 353 and
356 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City
FACTS: Foodsphere, Inc. (complainant), a corporation Prosecutor ofQuezon City and Valenzuela City.
engaged in the business of meat processing
andmanufacture and distribution of canned goods and The complaints were pending at the time of the
grocery products under the brand name “CDO,” filed filing of the presentadministrative complaint. The pending
aVerified Complaint for disbarment before the Commission on cases against him (respondent) and the issuance of a status
Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of thePhilippines quo ordernotwithstanding, respondent continued to publish
(IBP) against Atty. Melanio L. Mauricio, Jr., popularly known articles against complainant and to malign
as “Batas Mauricio” (respondent), awriter/columnist of complainantthrough his television shows.
tabloids including Balitang Patas BATAS, Bagong TIKTIK,
TORO and HATAW!, and a host ofa television program HELD: By the above-recited acts, respondent violated Rule
KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS telecast over UNTV and of a radio 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibilitywhich
program Double B-BATASNG BAYAN aired over DZBB, for mandates lawyers to refrain from engaging in unlawful,
(1) grossly immoral conduct; (2) violation of lawyer’s oath and dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. For, asthe IBP found,
(3) disrespect tothe courts and to investigating he engaged in deceitful conduct by, inter alia, taking
prosecutors.The above-mentioned case founded on certain advantage of the complaint against CDO toadvance his
facts: Alberto Cordero (Cordero) purportedly bought from interest – to obtain funds for his Batas Foundation and seek
agrocery in Valenzuela City canned goods including a can of sponsorships and advertisements forthe tabloids and his
CDO Liver spread. television program.He also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates:A lawyer shall
Cordero and his relatives wereeating bread with the CDO not makepublic statements in the media regarding a pending
Liver spread, they found the spread to be sour and soon case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
discovered a colony ofworms inside the can. Cordero’s wife For despite the pendency of the civil case against
thus filed a complaint with the BFAD. Laboratory examination him and the issuance of a status quo
confirmedthe presence of parasites in the Liver spread. The orderrestraining/enjoining further publishing, televising and
BFAD conducted a conciliation hearing during which broadcasting of any matter relative to the complaint ofCDO,
thespouses Cordero demanded P150,000 as damages respondent continued with his attacks against complainant
from complainant. Complainant refused to heed and its products. At the same time, respondentviolated
thedemand, however, as being in contravention of company Canon 1 also of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
policy and, in any event, “outrageous.” The which mandates lawyers to “uphold theConstitution, obey
Corderoseventually forged a KASUNDUAN seeking the the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal
withdrawal of their complaint before the BFAD. The BFAD processes.” For he defied saidstatus quo order, despite his
thusdismissed the complaint. Respondent, who affixed his (respondent’s) oath as a member of the legal profession to
signature to the KASUNDUAN as a witness, later wrote inone “obey the laws as wellas the legal orders of the duly
of his articles/columns in a tabloid that he prepared the constituted authorities.” The power of the media to form or
document. influence public opinion cannot be underestimated. On
reading the articlesrespondent published, not to mention
Respondent sent complainant anAdvertising Contract listening to him over the radio and watching him on television,
asking complainant to advertise in the tabloid Balitang Patas it cannot begainsaid that the same could, to a certain
BATAS and a Program Profileof the television program extent, have affected the sales of complainant. Atty.
KAKAMPI MO ANG BATAS also asking complainant to place MelanioMauricio is, for violation of the lawyer’s oath and
spot advertisements. Respondent, in his radio program breach of ethics of the legal profession as embodied inthe
Double B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB, announced Code of Professional Responsibility, SUSPENDED from the
the holding of asupposed contest sponsored by said program, practice of law for three years
saying: xxx Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa Pilipinas
an[g]may uod? Also, Respondent wrote in his columns in the
tabloids articles which put complainant in bad light.
 10. Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the liberty can be held critically in balance. A public trial aims to
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly
Former President Estrada, 360 SCRA 248 (2001) condemned and that his rights are not compromised. A public
trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that
Nature: Motion for reconsideration of the decision denying the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit
petitioners request for permission to televise and broadcast in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and
live the trial of former President Estrada before the observe the trial process. In the constitutional sense, a
Sandiganbayan. courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable
Keywords: Live telecast of President Estrada’s Plunder Case, number of the public to observe the proceedings, not too small
right to information, as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to
distract the trial participants from their proper functions, who
MENDOZA, J shall then be totally free to report what they have observed
during the proceedings.
Facts: On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster
ng Pilipinas (KBP) sent a letter requesting this Court to allow Ruling: WHEREFORE, an audio-visual recording of the trial of
live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and former President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan is hereby
other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. ordered to be made, for the account of the Sandiganbayan,
Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. The petitioners invoked under the following conditions: (a) the trial shall be recorded
other than the freedom of the press, the constitutional right of in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof as the
the people to be informed of matters of public concern which Sandiganbayan may determine should not be held public
could only be recognized, served and satisfied by allowing live under Rule 119, 21 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; (b)
radio and television coverage of the court proceedings. cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the
Moreover, the live radio and television coverage of the courtroom and the movement of TV crews shall be regulated
proceedings will also serve the dual purpose of ensuring the consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings;
desired transparency in the administration of justice. (c) the audio-visual recordings shall be made for documentary
purposes only and shall be made without comment except
However, in the Resolution of the Court on October 1991, in such annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be
a case for libel filed by then President Corazon C. Aquino read necessary to explain them; (d) the live broadcast of the
that the Court resolved to prohibit live radio and television recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have rendered its
coverage of court proceedings in view of protecting the decision in all the cases against the former President shall be
parties’ right to due process, to prevent distraction of the prohibited under pain of contempt of court and other sanctions
participants in the proceedings and to avoid miscarriage of in case of violations of the prohibition; (e) to ensure that the
justice. conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of the
proceedings shall be made under the supervision and control
Issue: Whether the constitutional guarantees of freedom of of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned and shall be
the press and right to information of public concern be given made pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and (f)
more weight than the fundamental rights of the accused. simultaneously with the release of the audio-visual recordings
for public broadcast, the original thereof shall be deposited in
Ratio: The petition is denied. the National Museum and the Records Management and
Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance
The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom with law.
of the press and the right to public information. It also This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying
approves of media's exalted power to provide the most petitioners' request for permission to televise and broadcast
accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the live the trial of former President Estrada before the
proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with Sandiganbayan. The motion was filed by the Secretary of
the judicial process in action; nevertheless, within the Justice, as one of the petitioners, who argues that there is
courthouse, the overriding consideration is still the paramount really no conflict between the right of the people to public
right of the accused to due process which must never be information and the freedom of the press, on the one hand,
allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial; that if
there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in
Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of favor of the right of the people and the press because the
innocence until the contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted people, as the repository of sovereignty, are entitled to
above its individual settings nor made an object of public's information; and that live media coverage is a safeguard
attention and where the conclusions reached are induced not against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments
by any outside force or influence but only by evidence and for the pursuit of selfish interests.
argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm
ambiance is demanded."Television can work profound On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada
changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on."The reiterates his objection to the live TV and radio coverage of
conscious or unconscious effect that such coverage may have his trial on the ground that its allowance will violate the sub
on the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges judice rule and that, based on his experience with the
cannot be evaluated but, it can likewise be said, it is not at all impeachment trial, live media coverage will only pave the way
unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to yield to it. for so-called "expert commentary" which can trigger massive
demonstrations aimed at pressuring the Sandiganbayan to
Although an accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right render a decision one way or the other. Mr. Estrada contends
that belongs to him, more than anyone else, where his life or that the right of the people to information may be served
through other means less distracting, degrading, and
prejudicial than live TV and radio coverage.1âwphi1.nêt On the other hand, by delaying the release of the tapes for
broadcast, concerns that those taking part in the proceedings
The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this will be playing to the cameras and will thus be distracted from
important issue and, after due deliberation, finds no reason to the proper performance of their roles -- whether as counsel,
alter or in any way modify its decision prohibiting live or real witnesses, court personnel, or judges -- will be allayed. The
time broadcast by radio or television of the trial of the former possibility that parallel trials before the bar of justice and the
president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its members,1 the bar of public opinion may jeopardize, or even prevent, the just
Court denies the motion for reconsideration of the Secretary determination of the cases can be minimized. The possibility
of Justice. that judgment will be rendered by the popular tribunal before
the court of justice can render its own will be avoided.
In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by
the vote of eight (8) Justices,2 has resolved to order the audio- At the same time, concerns about the regularity and fairness
visual recording of the trial. of the trial -- which, it may be assumed, is the concern of those
opposed to, as much as of those in favor of, televised trials -
What follows is the opinion of the majority.lawphil.net will be addressed since the tapes will not be released for
public showing until after the decision of the cases by the
Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan. By delaying the release of the tapes, much
Sandiganbayan of former President Estrada and the of the problem posed by real time TV and radio broadcast will
importance of preserving the records thereof, the Court be avoided.
believes that there should be an audio-visual recording of the
proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time Thus, many important purposes for preserving the record of
broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will they the trial can be served by audio-visual recordings without
be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall impairing the right of the accused to a fair trial.
have promulgated its decision in every case to which the
recording pertains. The master film shall be deposited in the Nor is the right of privacy of the accused a bar to the
National Museum and the Records Management and production of such documentary. In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd.
Archives Office for historical preservation and exhibition V. Capulong,5 this Court set aside a lower court's injunction
pursuant to law.4 restraining the filming of "Four Day Revolution," a
documentary film depicting, among other things, the role of
For the purpose of recording the proceedings, cameras will be then Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile in the
inconspicuously installed in the courtroom and the movement 1986 EDSA people power. This Court held: "A limited intrusion
of TV crews will be regulated, consistent with the dignity and into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible
solemnity of the proceedings. The trial shall be recorded in its where that person is a public figure and the information sought
entirety, except such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute
may decide should not be held public pursuant to Rule 119, matters of a public character."6
§21 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. No comment
shall be included in the documentary except annotations No one can prevent the making of a movie based on the trial.
which may be necessary to explain certain scenes which are But, at least, if a documentary record is made of the
depicted. The audio-visual recordings shall be made under proceedings, any movie that may later be produced can be
the supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan or its checked for its accuracy against such documentary and any
Division as the case may be. attempt to distort the truth can thus be averted.

There are several reasons for such televised Indeed, a somewhat similar proposal for documentary
recording.1awphil.net First, the hearings are of historic recording of celebrated cases or causes célèbres was made
significance. They are an affirmation of our commitment to the was made way back in 1971 by Paul Freund of the Harvard
rule that "the King is under no man, but he is under God and Law School. As he explained:
the law." (Quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo
et Lege.) Second, the Estrada cases involve matters of vital In fairness let me refer to an American experience many of my
concern to our people who have a fundamental right to know lay friends found similarly moving. An educational television
how their government is conducted. This right can be network filmed a trial in Denver of a Black Panther leader on
enhanced by audio visual presentation. Third, audio-visual charges of resisting arrest, and broadcast the document in full,
presentation is essential for the education and civic training of in four installments, several months after the case was
the people. concluded -- concluded incidentally, with a verdict of acquittal.

Above all, there is the need to keep audio-visual records of No one could witness the trial without a feeling of profound
the hearings for documentary purposes. The recordings will respect for the painstaking way in which the truth was
be useful in preserving the essence of the proceedings in a searched for, for the ways whereby law copes with
way that the cold print cannot quite do because it cannot uncertainties and ambiguities through presumptions and
capture the sights and sounds of events. They will be primarily burden of proof, and the sense of gravity with which judge and
for the use of appellate courts in the event a review of the jury carried out their responsibilities.
proceedings, rulings, or decisions of the Sandiganbayan is
sought or becomes necessary. The accuracy of the transcripts I agree in general with the exclusion of television from the
of stenographic notes taken during the trial can be checked courtroom, for the familiar good reasons. And yet the use of
by reference to the tapes. television at a trial for documentary purposes, not for the
broadcast of live news, and with the safeguards of
completeness and consent, is an educational experiment that
I would be prepared to welcome. Properly safeguarded and
with suitable commentary, the depiction of an actual trial is an
agency of enlightenment that could have few equals in its
impact on the public understanding.

Understanding of our legal process, so rarely provided by our

educational system, is now a desperate need.7

Professor Freund's observation is as valid today as when it

was made thirty years ago. It is perceptive for its recognition
of the serious risks posed to the fair administration of justice
by live TV and radio broadcasts, especially when emotions
are running high on the issues stirred by a case, while at the
same time acknowledging the necessity of keeping audio-
visual recordings of the proceedings of celebrated cases, for
public information and exhibition, after passions have
subsided.

WHEREFORE, an audio-visual recording of the trial of former

President Estrada before the Sandiganbayan is hereby
ordered to be made, for the account of the Sandiganbayan,
under the following conditions: (a) the trial shall be recorded
in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof as the
Sandiganbayan may determine should not be held public
under Rule 119, §21 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; (b)
cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the
courtroom and the movement of TV crews shall be regulated
consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings;
(c) the audio-visual recordings shall be made for documentary
purposes only and shall be made without comment except
such annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be
necessary to explain them; (d) the live broadcast of the
recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall have rendered its
decision in all the cases against the former President shall be
prohibited under pain of contempt of court and other sanctions
in case of violations of the prohibition; (e) to ensure that the
conditions are observed, the audio-visual recording of the
proceedings shall be made under the supervision and control
of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned and shall be
made pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and (f)
simultaneously with the release of the audio-visual recordings
for public broadcast, the original thereof shall be deposited in
the National Museum and the Records Management and
Archives Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance
with law.

SO ORDERED.