Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CONSTI 1
IN RE: Wenceslao Laureta
PONENTE:
SUMMARY:
DATE:
A LAWYER AND A CLIENT
THREATENS THE SUPREME
COURT WITH ACTION
FROM ANOTHER FORUM.
DOCTRINE:
(*a table with the chronological order of events is provided below the digest)
FACTS:
1. Three cases elevated to the supreme court in relation to the claim of respondent
Ilustre having a claim on the properties of Digna Maravila.
2. Three further Minute-resolutions1 were made by the Supreme court applying res
judicata2
Incriminating acts of Illustre (with suspicion of Atty. Lauretas involvement)
3. Respondent Illustre then writes letters the members of the 1 st division of the SC the
letter:
a. Requires them to disclose their participation in the (3) minute-resolutions
b. Threatens that they will be exposed in the proper-other forum
4. Filed a complaint in the Tanodbayan (ombudsman). Then published it in the dailies
5. Ombudsman DISMISSES the complaint by Ilustre.
6. Court thus in a resolution asks ILUSTRE AND ATTY. LAURETA to explain
themselves on the following questions:
a. Why Ilustre should not be held in contempt?
b. Why there should be no disciplinary action against Atty. Laureta as an
officer of the court?
7. Thus this resolution.
ISSUES:
RATIO:
a. Res judicata
b. The Escolin Decision (denying the intervention of Illustre because she had
no legal right over the inheritance) and Javellana (reversing the Busran
decision) decision are final.
c. Javellana resolved in favour of the rightful owners (meaning not
illustre)that:
i. The default is not final thus reversed
ii. Husband of Digno Maravilla is worthy
3. JUDGES GAVE IT DUE CONSIDERATION
a. It happens in court that a minute-resolutions are made. The respondent is
not the only one.
b. Was included in agenda as soon as feasible
4. YAP WAS NOT AWARE THAT ATTY. ORDONEZ WAS APPEARING ON BEHALF
OF THE OPPONENTS OF ILLUSTRE AND HE ALSO INHIBITED
a.
On the May 14 resolution: Yap just came back from an official mission and
was not aware
b. On the July 9 resolution: Yap inhibited
c. On the Sept 3 resolution: Yap inhibited again
d. *Only reason why Ordonez was still recognized and furnished a copy was
because his name was on the role.
5. Court is final
a. Highest judicial body and must be respected
____________________________________________________________________
WON SEPARATION OF POWERS VIOLATED
1. RESPONDENTS CLAIM: Ombudsman is right forum
2. CANNOT SUBJECT COURT TO EXECUTIVE
a. Filing the complaint to the ombudsman shows that the respondents were
forcing the supreme court to be subjected to the executive
b. This is a violation of the separation of powers
c. Separation of powers must be upheld and independence respected
because it is the means of enforcing the supremacy of the constitution
3. MUTUAL RESPECT FOR SEPARTION OF POWER
a. In the same way that the court respects enrolled bills the executive is
expected to respect the court
b. Separation of powers calls for the executive, legislative, and judicial
departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit.. (Tan
V. Macapagal)
____________________________________________________________________
WON DISCIPLINARY ACTION MUST BE TAKEN (YES)
1. Illustre transcended permissible bounds of fair comment and criticism to the
detriment of the orderly administration of justice even if they were just letters.
2. Atty. Laurete committed acts unbecoming of the court by threatening the court,
disrespecting the justices, lying about his undeniable participation, and
authorizing the action of his client.
DISPOSTIO
N
----------------------------------------------------------NOTES BELOW
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVENT:
Fernandez V Maravilla
SC case (GR No. L-23225)
Nov 9, 1977
Feb 29, 1979
Jan 20 1984