Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CANON 11
1. IN RE: SOTTO, 82 PHIL. 595
January 21, 1949
FACTS:
Atty. Vicente Sotto was required to show cause why
he s h o u l d n o t b e p u n i s h e d f o r c o n t e m p t i n
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s written statement of the Supreme
Court's decision in the matter of Angel Parazo's case,
which was published in Manila Times and in other
newspapers in the locality. Sotto was given ten days more
besides the five originally given him to fi le his answer,
and although his answer was fi led after the expiration
of the period of time given him the said answer was
admitted. He does not deny the authenticity of the
statement as it has been published. He however, contends
that
under
section1 3 ,
Article
VIII
of
the
Con sti tu ti on , whi ch con f e rs u p on th i s S u p re me
Court
the
power
to
p romu l g ate
rules
c o n c e r n i n g pleading, practice, and procedure, the
Supreme Court has no power to impose correctional
penalties upon the citizens, and it can only impose
fines and imprisonment by virtue of a law, and has to be
promulgated by Congress with the approval of the
Chief Executive. He also alleges in his answer that "in the
exercise of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the
Constitution, the respondent made his statement in the
press with the utmost good faith and with no intention
of offending any of the majority of the honorable members
of
this
high
Tribunal,
who,
in
his
opinion,
erroneously decided the Parazo case; but he has not
attacked, or intended to attack the honesty or integrity
of any one.
Issue: Whether or not Sotto is guilty of contempt?
published
false
imputations
against
its
Sebastian is administratively
ISSUE:
1.WON the attorney is disrespectful to the court or
offensive to to dignity?
2. WON the attorney had the right to protest and to
demand that the incident be made a matter of record?
HELD: the opinion of the court that the action of the judge in
seizing Alberto Aguas by the shoulder and turning him about
was unwarranted and an interference with that freedom from
unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled
while giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such
conduct the appellant had the right to pretest and to demand
that the incident be made a matter of record. That he did so
was not contempt, providing protest and demand were
respectfully made and with due regard for the dignity of the
court XXXX
Ruling: The Office of the Bar Confidant found that the acts of
the respondent constitute grave violation of oath of office,
and with said findings the Supreme Court agreed.
Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when he
caused the holding of a press conference where he made
statements against the Order allowing the accused to post
bail. He also violated the same Canon for his disrespect of the
court when he stated that Judge Tan was ignorant of the law,
that he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law
and that he was a liar. The SC held that it is not against
lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules
provide the proper venue and procedure because respect for
the institution must always be maintained. Hence, Atty.
Bagabuyo was suspended from the practice of law for one
year.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.