Montecillo and Atty. del Mar v. Gica G.R. No. L-36800.

October 21, 1974

Doctrine: It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an
officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes
fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our
democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.

Facts: Francisco M. Gica filed a criminal complaint for oral defamation and a civil case for
damages against Jorge Montecillo after the latter called the former "stupid" or a "fool." The civil
case for damages eventually reached the 4th Division of the Court of Appeals wherein it ruled in
favor of Gica and awarded him damages.

Atty. Quirico Del Mar, as Montecillos counsel, moved for a reconsideration of said decision with
a veiled threat by mentioning the provisions of the RPC on "Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment" and "Judgment Rendered through Negligence", and the innuendo that the CA
allowed itself to be deceived. When the motion was denied, the CA remarked that the
terminology of the motion insinuated that the CA rendered an unjust judgment, that it abetted a
falsification and it permitted itself to be deceived. It admonished Atty. del Mar to remember that
threats and abusive language cannot compel any court of justice to grant reconsideration.
Despite this, Atty. del Mar persisted and in his second motion for reconsideration, made another
threat by stating that his next appeal would be addressed to the President of the Philippines.

Because of such behaviour, the CA, through a resolution ordered Atty. del Mar to explain why he
should not be punished for contempt of court. Atty. del Mar made a written explanation wherein
he said that the CA could not be threatened and he was not making any threat but only
informing them of the course of action he would follow. He also informed the CA that he sent a
letter to the President of the Philippines, furnishing them a copy thereof, and requesting the
Justices to take into consideration the contents of said letter. Not content, Atty. del Mar sent
another letter to the CA wherein he reminded them of a civil case he instituted against Justices
of the Supreme Court for damages in the amount of P200,000 for a decision rendered not in
accordance with law and justice, stating that he would not like to do it again but would do so if
provoked.

The CA, through a resolution, concluded that Atty. del Mar is guilty of contempt and condemned
to pay a fine of P200.00 and ordered suspended from the practice of law. In response to the
CAs decision, Atty. del Mar filed a civil case for damages against the 3 Justices of the CAs 4th
Division, trying to hold them liable for their decision in the earlier civil case. Said case for
damages was eventually terminated by compromise agreement after Atty. del Mar himself
moved for the dismissal of his complaint, apologized to the CA and the Justices concerned, and
agreed to pay damages in favor of the Justices.

Not giving up on his case, Atty. del Mar, filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme
Court praying to reverse the CAs decision on the civil case of Gica against Montecillo. The SC
denied the petition and in response, Atty. del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration and wrote a
letter to the SCs Clerk of Court requesting the names of the Justices of the SC who supported
the resolution denying his petition, together with the names of the Justices favoring his motion
for reconsideration. Such motion was denied and Atty. del Mar, aggrieved, made a manifestation
before the SC, stating that had the Clerk of Court given him the list he asked for, he would have
filed the same suits against the SC Justices like he did with the CA Justices.
As a reaction, the SC ordered Atty. del Mar to explain why disciplinary action should not be
taken against him for the contemptuous statements contained in his manifestation. In response,
Atty. del Mar gave a defiant justification of his contemptuous statements and attached the
criminal and civil case he filed against the CA Justices as a veiled threat. In the mind of Atty. del
Mar, there is rampant corruption and injustice in the government, and those that denied his
motion are among the corrupt.

Finally, when the SC was executing the suspension order of Atty. del Mar from the earlier CA
resolution, Atty. del Mar filed a motion for reconsideration. Atty. del Mar was given the chance to
explain and stated that he was suffered repeated strokes and high blood pressure which
rendered him physically and mentally unstable. He apologized for the mistakes he might have
committed but persisted in his view that he was justified in filing cases against the Justices of
the CA and SC. In the end he stated that due to sickness and old age, he decided to retire from
the practice of law and asked the permission of the SC to release him from the obligation he has
contracted with his clients as regards all his pending cases.

With full realization that a practicing lawyer facing contempt proceedings cannot just be allowed
to voluntarily retire from the practice of law, an act which would negate the inherent power of the
court to punish him for contempt in defense of its integrity and honor, the SC denied said prayer
of Atty. del Mar without prejudice to his making arrangement directly with his clients.

Issue: Whether Atty. del Mar should be held in contempt of court and be suspended from the
practice of law?

Held: Yes. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a respectful attitude. As an
officer of the court, it is his duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court to which he owes
fidelity, according to the oath he has taken. Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of our
democratic institutions which, without such respect, would be resting on a very shaky
foundation.

Criminal contempt has been defined as a conduct that is directed against the dignity and
authority of the court or a judge acting judicially. It is an act obstructing the administration of
justice which tends to bring the court into disrepute or disrespect.
Atty. del Mars actions in resorting to veiled threats to make both Courts reconsider their
respective stand in the decision and the resolution that spelled disaster for his client cannot be
anything but pure insolence for said tribunals.

It is manifest that Atty. del Mar has scant respect for the two highest Courts of the land when on
the flimsy ground of alleged error in deciding a case, he proceeded to challenge the integrity of
both Courts by claiming that they knowingly rendered unjust judgment. In short, his allegation is
that they acted with intent and malice, if not with gross ignorance of the law, in disposing of the
case of his client.

Atty. del Mar was ordered to be suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.