SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 157384 : June 5, 2009

ERLINDA I. BILDNER and MAXIM !. IL"#RI, Petitioners, v. ERLINDA !. IL"#RI, RAMN !. IL"#RI, MARIE$$A !.
IL"#RI, #%EREEN !. IL"#RI, &E&ILIA A. BI#"'A, and A$$(. MAN"EL R. #ING#N, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
)ELA#&, JR., J.:
In this petition filed directly with the Court in accordance with Rule 71, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, Erlinda I !ildner and "a#i$o
% Ilusorio pray that respondents, one of the$ their $other and three their si&lin's, &e cited for indirect conte$pt for alle'ed
conte$ptuous re$ar(s and acts directed a'ainst the Court, particularly the then $e$&ers of its )irst Di*ision !y $otion dated +une
5, ,--., petitioners pray that the sa$e petition &e treated as a for$al co$plaint for dis&ar$ent or disciplinary action a'ainst
respondent /tty "anuel R Sin'son for alle'ed 'ross $isconduct, a$on' other offenses
0he 1ndisputed )acts
Indirect Conte$pt
0he resultin' alle'ed conte$ptuous state$ents and actions date &ac( to proceedin's &efore the Court, specifically in 2R Nos
1.3743 and 1.34-4 that were appeals fro$ the decision of the Court of /ppeals 5C/6 in C/72R S8 No 51943, denyin' the
petition for ha&eas corpus filed &y respondent Erlinda % Ilusorio to ha*e custody of her hus&and, 8otenciano Ilusorio 0he appealed
decision found 8otenciano to &e of sound $ind and not unlawfully restrained of his li&erty 0he C/, howe*er, 'ranted Erlinda Ilusorio
*isitation ri'hts, an acco$$odation which the Court nullified in its Decision of "ay 1,, ,--- in 2R Nos 1.3743 and 1.34-4
1
cra
0his "ay 1,, ,--- rulin' spawned se*eral incidents )irst, Erlinda Ilusorio $o*ed for its reconsideration, reiteratin' her &asic plea
for a writ of ha&eas corpus and that dau'hters petitioner !ildner and Syl*ia Ilusorio &e directed to desist fro$ pre*entin' her :fro$
seein' 8otenciano: Erlinda Ilusorio followed this $otion with a "otion to Set Case for 8reli$inary Conference, re;uestin' that she
and 8otenciano :&e <allowed to &e= &y the$sel*es to'ether in front of the >onora&le Court:
,
She reiterated this re;uest in an 1r'ent
"anifestation and "otion dated /u'ust ,5, ,---
!y Resolution of Septe$&er ,-, ,---, the Court set the case for preli$inary conference on Octo&er 11, ,--- &ut without re;uirin'
the $andatory presence of the parties
.
In another resolution dated +anuary .1, ,--1, the Court denied Erlinda Ilusorio?s
$anifestation and $otion in which she prayed that 8otenciano &e produced &efore, and &e $edically e#a$ined &y a tea$ of
$edical e#perts appointed &y, the Court
@
Erlinda Ilusorio sou'ht reconsideration of the +anuary .1, ,--1 resolution
On "arch ,7, ,--1, the Court denied with finality Erlinda Ilusorio?s $otion for reconsideration of the +anuary .1, ,--1
resolution
5
1ndaunted, she filed an 1r'ent "anifestation and "otion for Clarification of the Court?s +anuary .1, ,--1 resolution On
"ay .-, ,--1, the Court $erely noted the ur'ent $anifestation and $otion for clarification
9
cra
!y Resolution of +uly 13, ,--1,
7
the Court denied Erlinda Ilusorio?s $otion for reconsideration of the Decision dated "ay 1,, ,---
0hereafter, in another resolution dated +uly ,@, ,--,, we resol*ed to e#pun'e fro$ the records her repetiti*e $otions, with the
ca*eat that no further pleadin's shall &e entertained
4
cra
!arely o*er a $onth after, Erlinda Ilusorio, this ti$e represented &y Dela CruA /l&ano B /ssociates, sou'ht lea*e to file an ur'ent
$otion for reconsideration of the +uly ,@, ,--, resolution
In relation to the a&o*e ha&eas corpus case, Erlinda Ilusorio addressed two letters to then Chief Justice >ilario 2 Da*ide, +r dated
)e&ruary ,9, ,--1 and /pril 19, ,--1, respecti*ely In the first, she sou'ht assistance *is7C7*is her wish to see 8otenciano
3
In the
second, she chafed at what she considered the Court?s &ent to adhere to for$s and procedure and, at the sa$e ti$e, ur'ed the
Court to personally see 8otenciano
1-
cra
/nother letter of Septe$&er 5, ,--1 to Chief Justice Da*ide drew attention to the Court?s decision in 2R No 1@4345
entitledRamon K. Ilusorio v. Baguio Country Club, in which Erlinda Ilusorio ta''ed the decision as :appallin',: :unilaterally &raAen,:
and :unprecedented in the annals of the Supre$e Court decision7$a(in' process: In her words, the decision denied and dis$issed
the petition of her son, Ra$on Ilusorio, throu'h a :four7pa'e resolution &y unilaterally ar'uin' and citin' the ar'u$ents $ade &y the
respondents: in the case at the courts a quo, :without e*en 'i*in' the sa$e respondents the proper hearin' or re;uirin' a co$$ent
or a reply: In the sa$e letter, she $ade reference to the Court 'i*in' :special treat$ent to particular liti'ants:
11
cra
0o petitioners, Erlinda Ilusorio?s filin' of redundant $otions and pleadin's, alon' with her act of writin' the afore$entioned letters,
constitutes conte$ptuous disrespect and diso&edience or defiance of lawful orders of the Court
On top of the fore'oin' circu$stances, petitioners would also ha*e respondents cited for conte$pt in *iew of the pu&lication of On
the Ed'e of >ea*en, a &oo( carryin' Erlinda Ilusorio?s na$e as author and which contained her co$$entaries on the aforesaid
ha&eas corpus case In this &oo(, pu&lished &y 8I7E%I )oundation
1,
whose &oard of directors is co$posed of respondents Ra$on,
"arietta % Ilusorio, Shereen % Ilusorio, and Cecilia / !isuDa, the followin' e#cerpts fro$ the 8ostscript section captioned here
is Justice! appearEcraEnad
I pursued $y case in the Supre$e Court at Di*ision I 0here I was heard &y +ustice 8ardo, Da*ide, 8uno, %apunan, and Santia'o
+ust the sa$e 7 this hi'hest court of the land did not heed to $y desperate pleas Con*eniently, they o$itted the state of $y
hus&and?s true desiresF dis$issed the i$portance of $y hus&and?s presence in the courtF i'nored the ulti$ate need to chec( for
the$sel*es the true state of Nanoy?s healthF and after 8I?s recent death in +une ,4, ,--1, easily dis$issed $y case as :$oot and
acade$ic: "y hus&and was referred to as another :su&Gect: 5On the Ed'e of >ea*en, p 14-6
1.
cra
In the sa$e &oo(, Erlinda Ilusorio denounced +ustice !ernardo 8 8ardo, now retired, the ponente of the ha&eas corpus case, the
other $e$&ers of the then )irst Di*ision of the Court, and the Court as a wholeEcraEnad
Hhere is GusticeIcralaw
Sadly, the Court of /ppeals and, $oreso, the Supre$e Court &ro(e7up $y fa$ily Doesn?t our Constitution, our Ci*il Code and our
)a$ily Code protect the sanctity of $arria'e and the fa$ilyIcralaw
Has Gustice for saleI Has Gustice soldI Nasaan an' (atarun'anI
# # #
/u'ust ,3, ,--1
0o the Supre$e Court of the 8hilippines, Di*ision One, +ustice !ernardo 8ardo, 8onente on Case No # # #
# # #
Jou si$ply ;uoted an o&iter dictu$ of the Court of /ppeals 0here was no rulin' on his $ental condition as this was not at issue at
the ha&eas corpus >ow could you ha*e $ade a rulin' &ased on an o&iterI /ll the doctor?s reports su&$itted were totally
disre'arded In reality it was his frailty, not his $ental co$petence that I raised Durin' the last fi*e years, he &eca$e increasin'ly
frail, al$ost &lind and could &arely tal( >e was not a&le to read nor write for al$ost twenty years # # # Our separation, three years
a'o, cruel and inhu$an that it was, was $ade $ore painful &y your rulin' that I $ay not e*en *isit hi$
# # #
On "ay .-, ,--1, you ruled that your decision noted without action the ;uestions of $y lawyers, in effect &rushin' aside the "otion
for Clarification without any answers whatsoe*er HhyI
# # #
If your decision &eco$es res "udicata ha*en?t you Gust pro*ided a $ost con*enient *enue to separate spouses fro$ each other77
&ased on indi*idual ri'hts77particularly when one spouse is ailin' and prone to $anipulation and needs the other spouse the $ostI
Hhy did you wait for $ore than one year and after $y hus&and?s death to deny $y $otion for reconsiderationI Is it &ecause it is
easier to do so now that it is acade$icI Does your conscience &other you at allI
# # #
I close &y as(in' youE how can the hi'hest court of our land &e a party to the &rea( up of $y fa$ily and, disre'ardin' the )a$ily
Code, not let $e ta(e care of $y hus&and, per$it $y hus&and to die without e*en heedin' $y desperate pleas, if not for Gustice, at
least your concern for a hu$an &ein'I
# # #
Koo(in' &ac(, I cannot fail to see that77if our courts can render this (ind of Gustice to one li(e $yself &ecause I ha*e lesser $eans,
and lesser connections than $y well7$arried dau'hters, what (ind of Gustice is 'i*en to those less pri*ile'edI 0o the poor, with no
$eans77what ha*e theyI I cry for the$
1@
5E$phasis ours6
Dis&ar$ent Co$plaint
0he dis&ar$ent case a'ainst respondent /tty Sin'son ste$$ed fro$ his alle'ed atte$pt, as counsel of Ra$on in Ci*il Case No
@5.77R, to e#ert influence on presidin' Re'ional 0rial Court +ud'e /ntonio Reyes to rule in Ra$on?s fa*or 0o co$plainant7
petitioners, the &id to influence, which alle'edly ca$e in the for$ of a &ri&e offer, $ay &e deduced fro$ the followin' e#chan'es
durin' the "ay .1, ,--- hearin' on Ra$on?s $otion for +ud'e Reyes to inhi&it hi$self fro$ hearin' Ci*il Case No @5.77REcraEnad
CO1R0E Do you ha*e so$ethin' to add to your $otionIcralaw
/00J +OSEE 0he purpose of this representation &asically, your honor state the facts are already esta&lished as a &asis for tendency
or a perception correctly or incorrectly that there is already a possi&ility of partiality
CO1R0E Hho is your partnerIcralaw
/00J +OSEE 0he counsel for the plaintiff is Kaw Office of Sin'son and /ssociates and I a$ the associate of said Kaw Office, your
honor
CO1R0E /nd you are aware that /tty "anuel R Sin'son is your &ossI
# # #
/00J +OSEE Jes, your honorIcralaw
CO1R0E >as he &een tellin' you the truth in this caseIcralaw
/00J +OSEE Hell, your honor $y appearance here for the purpose of ha*in' this $otion duly heard
CO1R0E 0hat is why I?$ as(in' you the ;uestion, has he &een tellin' you the truth re'ardin' this caseIcralaw
/00J +OSEE Hell, your honor in fact the actual counsel here is /tty 2epty and I ha*e &een
CO1R0E /re you aware of the fact that /tty Sin'son has &een callin' $y residence in !a'uio City for a&out ,- to 5- ti$es alreadyI
cralaw
/00J +OSEE I ha*e no (nowled'e already
CO1R0E /re you aware that he has offered /tty Oscar Se*illa his class$ate at /teneo Kaw School 85--,----- to 'i*e it to $e for
the purpose of rulin' in fa*or of your client<I=
/00J +OSEE I ha*e no (nowled'e your honor
CO1R0E /s( hi$ that tell hi$ to face the $irror and as( hi$ if he is tellin' the truth alri'htI I will su$$on the records of 8KD0 0he
audacity of tellin' $e to inhi&it $yself here It has &een hi$ who has &een tryin' to influence $e
# # #
CO1R0E 0ell hi$ to loo( at his face in the $irror, tell $e if he is honest or not
15
cra
/nd to support their dis&ar$ent char'e a'ainst /tty Sin'son on the 'rounds of atte$pted &ri&ery and serious $isconduct,
co$plainant7petitioners su&$itted an affida*it e#ecuted on Dece$&er ,., ,--@ &y +ud'e Reyes in which he pertinently alle'edE
,6 0hat one of the cases I tried, heard and decided was Ci*il Case No @5.77R entitled #Ramon K. Ilusorio v. Baguio Country
Club# for the #$eclaration of %ullity of &imitations and'or In"unction # # #:F
.6 0hat the *ery $inute that the case was assi'ned &y raffle to the undersi'ned, /tty "anuel Sin'son counsel of plaintiff Ra$on %
Ilusorio in the afore$entioned case, started wor(in' on his channels to the undersi'ned to secure a fa*ora&le decision for his clientF
@6 0hat /tty Sin'son?s fore$ost lin( to the undersi'ned was /tty Oscar Se*illa, $y fa$ily friend and who incidentally was a
class$ate of /tty Sin'sonF
56 0hat /tty Se*illa, &ein' a close fa$ily friend, i$$ediately inti$ated to undersi'ned that /tty Sin'son wanted a fa*ora&le decision
and that *+e,e -a. a no* .o /a0ue an o11e, o1 a 2,32e 1,o4 +34 5/tty Sin'son6F
96 0hat I reGected e*ery &it of ille'al insinuations and told /tty Se*illa to assure /tty Sin'son that I a$ duty &ound to decide e*ery
case on the $erits no $atter who the liti'ants areF
76 0hat e*en &efore the start of the hearin' of the case, /tty Sin'son hi$self relentlessly wor(ed on undersi'ned &y /3.3*3n0 +34
a2ou* *+,ee *34e. 3n +3. o1135e /nd not &ein' satisfied with those *isits, he 5/tty Sin'son6 $ade4o,e *+an a do6en 5a77. *o
unde,.30ned8. Man37a and Ba0u3o ,e.3den5e., and wor(ed on /tty Se*illa # # # &y callin' the latter?s cell phone e*en when we
were playin' 'olf in "anila 0hese phone calls were e*en ad$itted &y /tty Sin'son in a "anifestation he filed in court citin' se*eral
ridiculous, un&elie*a&le and untruthful reasons for his phone callsF
46 0hat when Ra$on % Ilusorio?s plea for inGuncti*e relief was su&$itted for resolution, /tty Sin'son &eca$e $ore unrelentin' in
throwin' his professional ethics out of the window and &reached his lawyer?s oath &y9e,.ona77: 5a773n0 4an: 4o,e *34e., .o4e
o1 -+35+ -e,e e/en 4ade 7a*e e/en3n0., Gust tryin' to con*ince undersi'ned to 'rant the inGuncti*e relief his client Ra$on %
Ilusorio desperately needed in the caseF
36 0hat &ecause of his ina&ility to influence undersi'ned # # #, /tty Sin'son filed a $otion to inhi&it alle'in' that facts ha*e &een
esta&lished of undersi'ned?s partiality for his client?s ad*ersary, the defendant !a'uio Country Clu&F
1-6 0hat at the hearin' on the $otion to inhi&it # # # I declared in open court and in pu&lic the dishonest and unprofessional conduct
of /tty Sin'son in tryin' to influence a Gud'e to fa*or his client, no $atter how un$eritorious his prayer for inGunction was In open
court, undersi'ned scored /tty Sin'son?s audacity of as(in' an inhi&ition when it has always &een hi$ and hi$ alone who wanted
and tried to influence the undersi'ned
116 0hat on +anuary 1,, ,---, undersi'ned issued an Order in Ci*il Case No @5.77R # # # denyin' /tty Sin'son?s client?s prayer for
the issuance of a writ of preli$inary inGunction # # #F
1,6 0hat the undersi'ned?s rulin' a'ainst /tty Sin'son?s client in the case was ele*ated to the <C/= in 2R No 53.5. where # # #
/tty Sin'son ne*er raised the issue of undersi'ned?s denial to inhi&itF
1.6 0hat still unsatisfied with the <C/?s= ad*erse rulin' a'ainst his client, /tty Sin'son went on to the Supre$e Court in 2R No
1@4345 ;uestionin' the <C/?s= affir$ation of undersi'ned?s decision 0he Supre$e Court # # # dis$issed the appeal of Ra$on %
Ilusorio and sustained undersi'ned?s decision
19
5E$phasis ours6
Co$plainant7petitioners also su&$itted /tty Oscar Se*illa?s affida*it to support the atte$pted &ri&ery char'e a'ainst /tty Sin'son
In its pertinent part, /tty Se*illa?s affida*it readsEcraEnad
0hat so$eti$e in late Octo&er of 1333 # # #, I recei*ed a call fro$ /tty Sin'son # # # and in the course of our con*ersation, I
learned that Ra$on % Ilusorio is his client who has a ci*il case raffled to +ud'e ReyesF
0hat durin' said con*ersation, I $entioned to /tty Sin'son that +ud'e Reyes is a fa$ily friend and # # # is a $an of inte'rityF
0hat in the $onths that followed, /tty Sin'son $ade a call or two to $y cellphone re;uestin' if I could $ention to +ud'e Reyes that
he 5/tty Sin'son6 is $y class$ate at the /teneo and also a 'ood friendF
0hat I re$e$&er ha*in' $entioned this to +ud'e Reyes who told $e that he always decides on the $erits of all cases # # # and to
tell /tty Sin'son that he need not worry if he had a $eritorious case
17
cra
In *iew of the fore'oin' considerations, petitioners prayed that respondents &e adGud'ed 'uilty of cri$inal conte$pt of court and
punished in accordance with Sec 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court 0he censure of respondents was also sou'ht for usin'
e#traGudicial ways of influencin' pendin' cases in court Kastly, petitioners as(ed for the dis&ar$ent or discipline of /tty Sin'son for
atte$pted &ri&ery and 'ross $isconduct
!y separate resolutions, the Court directed respondents to su&$it their co$$ent on the conte$pt aspect of the petition and /tty
Sin'son to su&$it his co$$ent on petitioners? $otion to consider the sa$e petition as a for$al co$plaint for dis&ar$ent or other
disciplinary action
Respondents? Co$$ents
Respondents ad$itted the fact of filin' &y Erlinda Ilusorio of the *arious $anifestations and $otions $entioned in the &asic petition
for conte$pt, her authorship of On the Ed'e of >ea*en, and her ha*in' written personal letters to then Chief JusticeDa*ide 0hey
contended, howe*er, that the $otions and $anifestations, couched in a *ery respectful lan'ua'e,
14
can hardly &e considered
conte$ptuous, interposed as they were in the e#ercise of the liti'ant?s ri'ht to a*ail herself of all le'al re$edies under the Rules of
Court Erlinda Ilusorio?s acts, so respondents clai$ed, were :all $ade in 'ood faith,: $oti*ated &y the desire to secure :custody # # #
of her hus&and, <and= to pro*ide <hi$= ade;uate $edical care # # # and to pre*ent hi$ fro$ &ein' an unwittin' pawn to ille'ally
dissipate the properties of the conGu'al properties of the spouses:
/s to Erlinda Ilusorio?s letters to Chief Justice Da*ide and the $e$&ers of the Court, respondents stated that these letters, far fro$
&ein' conte$ptuous, :tend to i$pro*e the ad$inistration of Gustice and encoura'e the courts to decide cases purely on the $erits:
/nd in tra*ersal of the alle'ation that (n the )dge of *eaven contains actiona&le $atters, respondents clai$ed, inter alia, that the
co$$ents Erlinda Ilusorio $ade in the &oo( were no $ore than reasona&le reactions fro$ a layperson a''rie*ed &y what she
considers an unGust Court decision and who :felt she had to write a &oo( that would rectify the erroneous findin's of the Court and
put forth the truth a&out the so7called Ilusorio fa$ily feud:
13
Hhat is $ore, respondents said, sisters "arietta and Shereen as well
as Cecilia had no hand in the contents of the &oo( and its pu&lication, as Erlinda Ilusorio, as Chairperson and 8resident of 8I7E%I
)oundation, is authoriAed to perfor$ acts on &ehalf of the foundation
Hith re'ard to the &ri&ery alle'ations a'ainst /tty Sin'son, respondents in*ited attention to the "anifestation in Ci*il Case No
@5.77R to dispute the accusation of +ud'e Reyes 0he refutations, as reproduced in the respondents? "e$orandu$, run as followsE
5a6 Hhile it is true that Sin'son called +ud'e Reyes nu$erous ti$es the nature and purpose of said calls were proper and a&o*e
&oard 0he reason why the phone calls were nu$erous is &ecause oftenti$es, +ud'e Reyes was not in the places where the calls
were $ade
5&6 0he phone calls were $ade either to re;uest for a postpone$ent of a hearin' of the case or to in;uire a&out the status of the
incident on the issuance of the te$porary restrainin' order applied for in the case
5c6 It was +ud'e Reyes hi$self who furnished the telephone nu$&ers in his office and his residence in !a'uio City /pparently,
+ud'e Reyes did not find the telephone calls i$proper as he answered $ost of the$, and that he ne*er reported or co$plained
a&out the said calls to the appropriate Gudicial authorities or to the Inte'rated !ar of the 8hilippines if he had found the actuations of
Sin'son in *iolation of the pro*isions of the Code of 8rofessional Responsi&ility
5d6 /s to the alle'ed &ri&ery atte$pt, there is a&solutely no truth to the sa$e If it is true that there was such an offer, there is no
reason why Sin'son could not ha*e $ade the offer hi$self, since he personally (nows +ud'e Reyes 0he alle'ations of +ud'e
Reyes <are= purely hearsay and i$a'inary If the &ri&ery atte$pt had indeed happened, why did +ud'e Reyes not report the $atter
to the Supre$e Court or to the I!8 or e*en &etter, cite /tty Se*illa andLor Sin'son in conte$pt of court, or file a cri$inal case of
atte$pted &ri&ery a'ainst the$, or discipline the$ &y hi$self in accordance with the pro*isions of Rule 1.4 and 1.3 of the Re*ised
Rules of CourtI 0he fact that +ud'e Reyes did not do any of the fore'oin' clearly shows the falsity of his clai$s
,-
Respondents added that the &ri&ery char'e was &ased on a hearsay account, since the alle'ed offer to +ud'e Reyes e$anated
fro$ /tty Se*illa
0he Issues
H>E0>ER OR NO0 RES8ONDEN0S /RE 21IK0J O) INDIREC0 CON0E"80 O) CO1R0
H>E0>ER OR NO0 /00J SIN2SON S>O1KD !E /D"INIS0R/0IVEKJ DISCI8KINED OR DIS!/RRED )RO" 0>E 8R/C0ICE
O) K/H )OR /KKE2ED 2ROSS "ISCOND1C0 IN /00E"80IN2 0O !RI!E +1D2E /N0ONIO REJES
0he Court?s Rulin'
Indirect Conte$pt
0he Court?s di'nity and authority would always &e prey to attac( were it to treat with a&Gect indifference and loo( with co$placent
eyes on serious &reaches of ethics and deni'ratin' utterances directed a'ainst it 0o preser*e their authority and efficiency,
safe'uard the pu&lic confidence in the$, and (eep in*iolate their di'nity, courts of Gustice should not yield to the assaults of
disrespect
,1
and $ust, when necessary, wield their inherent power to punish for conte$pt, a power necessary for their own
protection a'ainst i$proper interference with the due ad$inistration of Gustice
,,
cra
Conte$pt, whether direct or indirect, $ay &e ci*il or cri$inal, dependin' on the nature and effect of the conte$ptuous act
,.
Ci*il
conte$pt is the failure to do so$ethin' ordered &y the court for the &enefit of the opposin' party Cri$inal conte$pt, on the other
hand, is conduct directed a'ainst the di'nity and authority of the court or a Gud'e actin' GudiciallyF it is an act o&structin' the
ad$inistration of Gustice which tends to &rin' the court into disrepute or disrespect
,@
On the &asis of the fore'oin' principles, it can
&e safely concluded that under Sec .5d6 of Rule 71 on conte$pt, :any i$proper conduct tendin', directly or indirectly, to i$pede,
o&struct, or de'rade the ad$inistration of Gustice: constitutes cri$inal conte$pt 0his is what petitioners o&*iously would ha*e
respondents cited for
0he conte$pt power, howe*er plenary it $ay see$, $ust &e e#ercised Gudiciously and sparin'ly with ut$ost self7restraint with the
end in *iew of utiliAin' it for correction and preser*ation of the di'nity of the court, not for retaliation or *indication
,5
0o &e sure,
courts and Gud'es, as institutions, are neither sacrosanct nor i$$une to pu&lic criticis$s of their conduct
,9
/nd well7reco'niAed is
the ri'ht of citiAens to criticiAe in a fair and respectful $anner and throu'h le'iti$ate channels the acts of courts or Gud'es,
,7
who in
turn ou'ht to &e patient and tolerate as $uch as possi&le e*erythin' which appears as hasty and un'uarded e#pression of passion
or $o$entary out&rea( of disappoint$ent at the outco$e of a case E*en snide re$ar(s, asPeople v. +odoy teaches, do not
necessarily parta(e the nature of contu$acious utterance actiona&le under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court
,4
cra
!ut as we ha*e e$phasiAed ti$e and ti$e a'ain, :<i=t is the cardinal condition of all such criticis$ that it shall &e &ona fide, and shall
not spill o*er the walls of decency and propriety / wide chas$ e#ists &etween fair criticis$, on one hand, and a&use and slander of
courts and the Gud'es thereof, on the other:
,3
O&structin', &y $eans of oppro&rious words, spo(en or written, the ad$inistration of
Gustice &y the courts will su&Gect the a&user to punish$ent for conte$pt of court /nd re'ardless of whether or not the case of
reference has &een ter$inated is of little $o$ent One $ay &e cited for conte$pt of court e*en after the case has ended where
such puniti*e action is necessary to protect the court and to *indicate it fro$ acts or conduct calculated to de'rade, ridicule, or &rin'
it into disfa*or and there&y erode pu&lic confidence in that court
.-
cra
In the case at &ar, the *arious $otions and $anifestations filed &y Erlinda Ilusorio neither contained offensi*ely disrespectful
lan'ua'e nor tended to &es$irch the di'nity of the Court In fact, the Court, $indful of the need to clear its doc(et of what really is
an unfortunate fa$ily s;ua&&le, considered and ruled on each of her $otions and $anifestations )or the nonce, the Court accords
Erlinda Ilusorio the &enefit of the dou&t and is inclined to thin( that her nu$erous pleadin's that reiterate the sa$e issues were
&ona fide atte$pts to resuscitate and sal*a'e what she $i'ht ha*e san'uinely &elie*ed to &e a $eritorious case in*ol*in' her
$arital ri'hts 0his is not to say, howe*er, that the Court *iews with un;ualified appro*al the o&no#ious practice of filin' pleadin's
after pleadin's that only su&stantially reiterate the sa$e issues that had already &een passed upon and found to &e un$eritorious
0he Court, as a $atter of sound practice, will not allow its precious ti$e and resources to &e eaten unnecessarily
.1
/ccordin'ly,
Erlinda Ilusorio andLor counsel is put on notice a'ainst tryin' the Court?s patience and a&usin' its for&earance &y continuin' with
their ta#in' ways
Erlinda Ilusorio?s personal letters to then Chief Justice Da*ide were not contu$acious in character Neither do we find the$
actiona&le, as a slei'h &ut su&7rosa atte$pt to influence the letter7addressee, under the conte$pt pro*isions of the Rules of Court
/s we articulated in In Re, enceslao &aureta, letters addressed to indi*idual $e$&ers of the Court, in connection with the
perfor$ance of their Gudicial functions, &eco$e part of the Gudicial record and are a $atter of concern for the entire Court
.,
/lthou'h
decisions of the Court are not &ased on personal letters and pleas to indi*idual Gustices, we nonetheless discoura'e liti'ants fro$
pursuin' such unnecessary e#tra7le'al $ethods to secure relief 0here are ade;uate re$edies for the purpose under the Rules of
Court
1nli(e the contents of the pleadin's and letters in ;uestion, E%I?s state$ents in On the Ed'e of >ea*en, howe*er, pose a different
threat to the Court?s repute )or reference, the followin' are the definin' portions of what she wroteE
516 :0he Supre$e Court &ro(e up $y fa$ily:
5,6 :Has Gustice for saleI Has Gustice soldI Nasaan an' (atarun'anI:
5.6 :If your decision &eco$es res "udicata ha*en?t you Gust pro*ided a $ost con*enient *enue to separate spouses fro$ each other #
# #I:
5@6 :Hhy did you wait for $ore than one year and after $y hus&and?s death to deny $y $otion for reconsiderationI Is it &ecause it is
easier to do so now that it is acade$icI Does your conscience &other you at allI:
556 :>ow can the hi'hest court of our land &e a party to the &rea( up of $y fa$ily and, disre'ardin' the )a$ily Code # # #I:
596 :<I=f our courts can render this (ind of Gustice to one li(e $yself &ecause I ha*e lesser $eans, and lesser connections than $y
well7$arried dau'hters, what (ind of Gustice is 'i*en to those less pri*ile'edI:
0a(en to'ether, the fore'oin' state$ents and their reasona&ly deduci&le i$plications went &eyond the per$issi&le &ounds of fair
criticis$ Erlinda Ilusorio $inced no words in directly attac(in' the Court for its alle'ed co$plicity in the &rea( up of the Ilusorio
fa$ily, sharply insinuatin' that the Court intentionally delayed the resolution of her $otion for reconsideration, disre'arded the
)a$ily Code, and unduly fa*ored wealthy liti'ants !ut the worst cut is her su''estion a&out the Court sellin' its decisions She
posed the ;uery, :%asaan ang -atarungan! 5Hhere is GusticeI6,: i$plyin' that this Court failed to dispense Gustice in her case Hhile
$ost of her state$ents were in the for$ of ;uestions instead of cate'orical assertions, the effect is still the sa$eE they constitute a
stin'in' affront to the honor and di'nity of the Court and tend to under$ine the confidence of the pu&lic in the inte'rity of the hi'hest
tri&unal of the land
Erlinda Ilusorio e#plains that she is a layperson uninitiated in le'al $atters, an a''rie*ed widow who Gust wants to &e relie*ed of
pain caused &y the inGustice of the decision of this Court She :felt she had to write a &oo( that would rectify the erroneous findin's
of the Court # # #:
..
O&*iously she had achie*ed her 'oal of self7e#pression &ut to the detri$ent of the orderly ad$inistration of
Gustice 0o &e sure, she could ha*e had ade;uately e#pressed her disa'ree$ent with the Court?s disposition in the ha&eas corpus
case without ta(in' the low road, without &ein' insultin', without castin' a cloud of suspicion on the reputation of the Court In so$e
detail, the Court, in 8eople * 2odoy, set forth what is per$issi&le and when one is considered to ha*e o*erstepped &oundsEcraEnad
2enerally, criticis$ of a court?s rulin's or decisions is not i$proper, and $ay not &e restricted after a case has &een finally disposed
of and has ceased to &e pendin' So lon' as critics confine their criticis$s to facts and &ase the$ on the decisions of the court, they
co$$it no conte$pt no $atter how se*ere the criticis$ $ay &eF &ut when they pass &eyond that line and char'e that Gudicial
conduct was influenced &y i$proper, corrupt, or selfish $oti*es, or that such conduct was affected &y political preGudice or interest,
the tendency is to create distrust and destroy the confidence of the people in their courts
!ut criticis$ should &e distin'uished fro$ insult / criticis$ after a case has &een disposed of can no lon'er influence the court, and
on that 'round it does not constitute conte$pt On the other hand, an insult hurled to the court, e*en after a case is decided, can
under no circu$stance &e Gustified "ere criticis$ or co$$ent on the correctness or wron'ness, soundness or unsoundness of the
decision of the court in a pendin' case $ade in 'ood faith $ay &e toleratedF &ut to hurl the false char'e that the Supre$e Court has
&een co$$ittin' deli&erately so $any &lunders and inGustices would tend necessarily to under$ine the confidence of the people in
the honesty and inte'rity of its $e$&ers, and conse;uently to lower or de'rade the ad$inistration of Gustice, and it constitutes
conte$pt
.@
cra
/ &eco$in' respect for the courts should always &e the nor$ Kiti'ants, no $atter how a''rie*ed or dissatisfied they $ay &e of
court?s decision, do not ha*e the un&ridled freedo$ in e#pressin' their frustration or 'rie*ance in any $anner they want Crossin'
the per$issi&le line of fair co$$ent and le'iti$ate criticis$ of the &ench and its actuations shall constitute conte$pt which $ay &e
*isited with sanctions fro$ the Court as a $easure of protectin' and preser*in' its di'nity and honor
He e#plained in Hic(er * /rcan'elEcraEnad
# # # <0=he power to punish for conte$pt is to &e e#ercised on the preser*ati*e and not on the *indicti*e principle Only occasionally
should it &e in*o(ed to preser*e that respect without which the ad$inistration of Gustice will fail 0he conte$pt power ou'ht not to &e
utiliAed for the purpose of $erely satisfyin' an inclination to stri(e &ac( at a party for showin' less than full respect for the di'nity of
the court
.5
cra
/s to the other $e$&ers of the !oard of Directors of the 8I7E%I )oundation, the pu&lisher of On the Ed'e of >ea*en, we find no
$erit in the char'e of indirect conte$pt a'ainst the$ 0rue, e#cept for /tty Sin'son, respondents Ra$on, "arietta and Shereen
Ilusorio, and Cecilia appear to &e officers of 8I7E%I )oundation 0here is no co$pellin' reason, howe*er, to pierce, as petitioners
ur'e, the *eil of corporate fiction in order to hold these officers lia&le, especially in li'ht of Erlinda Ilusorio?s assertion of &ein'
authoriAed, as Chairperson and 8resident of the said foundation, to perfor$ acts on &ehalf of the foundation without prior &oard
appro*al Indirect conte$pt is a deli&erate act to &rin' the court or Gud'e into disrepute In this case, proof of the participation of the
&oard of directors and officers to willfully $ali'n the Court is utterly wantin' In this re'ard, there is authority indicatin' that no one
can &e a$ena&le to cri$inal conte$pt unless the e*idence $a(es it a&undantly clear that one intended to co$$it it
.9
It cannot
plausi&ly &e assu$ed that the said officers shared Erlinda Ilusorio?s ill re'ard towards the Gudiciary fro$ the $ere fact that the 8I7E%I
)oundation pu&lished the &oo(
Dis&ar$ent
/s to the co$plaint for dis&ar$ent, there is a well7'rounded reason to &elie*e that /tty Sin'son indeed atte$pted to influence
+ud'e Reyes decide a case in fa*or of /tty Sin'son?s client 0he interplay of the followin' docu$entary e*idence, earlier cited,
pro*ides the reasonE 516 the transcript of the steno'raphic notes of the "ay .1, ,--- hearin' in the sala of +ud'e Reyes in Ci*il
Case @5.77R when the Gud'e $ade it of record a&out the atte$pt to &ri&eF 5,6 the affida*it of +ud'e Reyes dated Dece$&er ,.,
,--@ narratin' in so$e detail how and thru who$ the atte$pt to &ri&e ad*erted to was $adeF and 5.6 the affida*it of /tty Se*illa
who ad$itted ha*in' &een approached &y /tty Sin'son to intercede for his case pendin' with +ud'e Reyes Si'nificantly, /tty
Sin'son ad$itted ha*in' $ade phone calls to +ud'e Reyes, either in his residence or office in !a'uio City durin' the period
$aterial >e offers the la$e e#cuse, howe*er, that he was $erely followin' up the status of a te$porary restrainin' order applied for
and so$eti$es as(in' for the resettin' of hearin's
0he Court finds the e#planation proffered as puerile as it is preposterous "atters touchin' on case status could and should &e done
throu'h the court staff, and resettin' is usually acco$plished thru proper written $otion or in open court /nd 'oin' &y +ud'e Reyes?
affida*it, the incri$inatin' calls were so$eti$es $ade late in the e*enin' and so$eti$es in the $ost unusual hours, such as while
+ud'e Reyes was playin' 'olf with /tty Se*illa /tty Se*illa lent corro&orati*e support to +ud'e Reyes? state$ents, particularly
a&out the fact that /tty Sin'son wanted +ud'e Reyes apprised that they, Sin'son and Se*illa, were law school class$ates
0he hi'hly i$$oral i$plication of a lawyer approachin' a Gud'e77or a Gud'e e*incin' a willin'ness77to discuss, in pri*ate, a $atter
related to a case pendin' in that Gud'e?s sala cannot &e o*er7e$phasiAed 0he fact that /tty Sin'son did tal( on different occasions
to +ud'e Reyes, initially throu'h a $utual friend, /tty Se*illa, leads us to conclude that /tty Sin'son was indeed tryin' to influence
the Gud'e to rule in his client?s fa*or 0his conduct is not accepta&le in the le'al profession Canon 1. of the Code of 8rofessional
Responsi&ility enGoins itEcraEnad
Canon 1. / lawyer shall rely upon the $erits of his cause and refrain fro$ any i$propriety which tends to influence or 'i*es the
appearance of influencin' the court
/t this Guncture, the Court ta(es particular stoc( of the ensuin' state$ent +ud'e Reyes $ade in his affida*itE :# # # /tty Se*illa,
&ein' a close fa$ily friend, i$$ediately inti$ated to <$e= that /tty Sin'son wanted a fa*ora&le decision and that there was a not so
*a'ue an offer of a &ri&e fro$ hi$ 5/tty Sin'son6: +ud'e Reyes reiterated the &ri&e atte$pt durin' the hearin' on "ay .1, ,---,
and $ade reference to the fi'ure 8h8 5--,---, the a$ount /tty Sin'son offered throu'h /tty Se*illa /s $ay &e e#pected, /tty
Sin'son dis$issed +ud'e Reyes? account as hearsay and ;uestioned the non7filin' of any co$plaint for atte$pted &ri&ery or
disciplinary action &y +ud'e Reyes at or near the ti$e it was said to ha*e &een co$$itted
)irst, we $ust stress the difficulty of pro*in' &ri&ery 0he transaction is always done in secret and often only &etween the two parties
concerned Indeed, there is no concrete e*idence in the records re'ardin' the co$$ission &y /tty Sin'son of atte$pted &ri&ery
E*en /tty Se*illa did not $ention any related $atter in his affida*it Ne*ertheless, +ud'e Reyes? disclosures in his affida*it and in
open court deser*e so$e wei'ht 0he possi&ility of an atte$pted &ri&ery is not far fro$ reality considerin' /tty Sin'son?s persistent
phone calls, one of which he $ade while +ud'e Reyes was with /tty Se*illa +ud'e Reyes? declaration $ay ha*e &een an
:e$otional out&urst: as descri&ed &y /tty Sin'son, &ut the spontaneity of an out&urst only 'i*es it $ore wei'ht
Hhile the alle'ed atte$pted &ri&ery $ay perhaps not &e supported &y e*idence other than +ud'e Reyes? state$ents, there is
ne*ertheless enou'h proof to hold /tty Sin'son lia&le for unethical &eha*ior of atte$ptin' to influence a Gud'e, itself a trans'ression
of considera&le 'ra*ity >owe*er, heedin' the inGunction a'ainst decreein' dis&ar$ent where a lesser sanction would suffice to
acco$plish the desired end, a suspension for one year fro$ the practice of law appears appropriate
;%ERE<RE, E,73nda !. I7u.o,3o is adGud'ed G"IL$( of INDIRE&$ &N$EM=$ and is ordered to pay a fine of ten thousand
pesos 58h8 1-,---6 A**:. Manue7 R. #3n0.on is #"#=ENDED for NE >1? (EAR fro$ the practice of law, effecti*e upon his
receipt of this Decision Costs a'ainst Respondents
Ket all the courts, throu'h the Office of the Court /d$inistrator, as well as the Inte'rated !ar of the 8hilippines and the Office of the
!ar Confidant &e notified of this Decision and &e it duly recorded in the personal file of respondent "anuel R Sin'son
# RDERED