In re LAURETA

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY.

WENCESLAO LAURETA, AND OF CONTEMPTPROCEEDINGS AGAINST EVA MARAVILLA-
ILUSTRE in G.R. No. 68635, entitled "EVA MARAVILLA-ILUSTRE, vs. HON.
INTERMEDIATEAPPELLATE COURT, ET AL

G.R. No. L-68635 May 14, 1987

Facts:

Maravilla Illustre wrote to the justices of the SC, complaining about the dismissal of the her case
(aland dispute involving large estate) by a minute-resolution. Illustre claims that it was an unjust
resolutiondeliberately and knowingly promulgated by the 1st Division, that it was railroaded with
such hurry beyondthe limits of legal and judicial ethics. Illustre also threatened in her letter that,
“there is nothing final in this world. This case is far from finished by a long shot.” She threatened
that she would call for a press conference. Illustre’s letter basically attacks the participation of
Justice Pedro Yap in the first division. It was established that Justice Yap was previously a law
partner of Atty. Ordonez, now the Solgen and counsel for the opponents. The letters were
referred to the SC en banc. The SC clarified that when the minute-resolution was issued, the
presiding justice then was not Justice Yap but Justice Abad Santos (who was about to retire),
and that Justice Yap was not aware that Atty Ordonez was the opponents counsel. It was also
made clear that Justice Yap eventually inhibited himself from the case. Still, Illustre wrote letters
to the other justices (Narvasa, Herrera, Cruz), again with more threats to “exposethe kind of
judicial performance readily constituting travesty of justice.”

True to her threats, Illustre later filed a criminal complaint before the Tanodbayan, charging the
Justices with knowingly rendering an unjust Minute Resolution. Justice Yap and Solgen
Ordonez were also charged of using their influence in the First Division in rendering said Minute
Resolution. Atty LAURETA was the counsel of Illustre. He circulate copies of the complain to the
press, without any copy furnished the Court, nor the Justices charged. It was made to appear
that the Justices were charged with graft and corruption. The Tanodbayan dismissed the
complaint. Now, the SC is charging them with contempt. They claim that the letters were private
communication, and that they did not intend to dishonor the court.

Issue: WON privacy of communication was violated

Held: The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire
court.

There is no vindictive reprisal involved here. The Court’s authority and duty under the premises
is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an
irate lawyer,mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal
profession.

We re not convinced that Atty Laureta had nothing to do with Ilustre’s letters, nor with the
complaint filedwith the tanodbayan. Atty Laureta repeated disparaging remarks such as “undue
influence”, powerful influence” in his pleadings. This was bolstered by the report that Laureta
distributed copies of the complaint to the newspaper companies in envelopes bearing his name.
He was also heard over the radio.

Lastly, as Illustre’s lawyer, he had control of the proceedings.SC resolutions are beyond
investigation from other departments of the government because of separationof powers.
The correctness of the SC decisions are conclusive upon other branches of government.