SURIGAO MINERAL RESERVATION BOARD et al vs.
CLORIBEL
FACTS:
First Contempt case:
The Supreme Court rendered a decision against MacArthur International Minerals
Corp and in their third Motion for Reconsideration, Attys. Vicente Santiago and John Beltran
Sotto made use of language that are disrespectful and contemptuous to the Court like "it seems many
of our judicial authorities believe they are chosen messengers of God", "corrupt in its face" and
insinuating favoritism and partisanship of the members of the Court, notable Chief Justice
Concepcion and Justice Castro due to alleged interest in the case (Castro's brother works for one of
the parties). Santiago and Castro wanted for the two justices to inhibit themselves in the MR. The
Court demanded for Santiago and Sotto to show cause why they shouldn't be cited in contempt for
the said statements. Santiago insisted that the statements he made were inadvertently included in the
copy sent to the Court, and was just intended to be in the MR's rough draft.
Second Contempt case:
Counsel for MacArthur drafted a fourth motion for reconsideration, this time with Atty.
Juanito M. Caling as counsel, and again contained language which the Court found disrespectful. The
MR assailed the decision penned by CJ Concepcion since he was out of town when the decision was
written and included seeming threats of elevating the issue to the World Court and allegations of rise
of graft and corruption in the judiciary. The Court demanded Caling to also show cause and he said
that the motion was already prepared by Santiago when he took the case as was verified by Morton
Meads, an employee from MacArthur.
ISSUE: Whether the lawyers should be cited in contempt?
HELD:
1st case:
Yes. The language employed by Santiago and Sotto degrades the administration of justice
which transgresses Section 3 (d) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as well as Sec. 20 (f) of Rule 138 of
the RoC which states that "a lawyer's language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the
legal profession". They are also expected to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of
justice and judicial officers but their acts resulted in the contrary and are intended to create an
atmosphere of distrust. The inadvertence of Santiago's use of words can't be used as a shield to
absolve him of any misdeeds.
2nd case:
Yes. Even if the idea of the language used in the 4th MR came from Meads, both Santiago
and Caling should've adhered to Canon 16 of the Code of Legal Ethics wherein "a lawyer should use
his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from doing those things which a lawyer himself
ought not to do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers, jurors,
witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing, the lawyer should have terminated their
relation". Santiago is also liable here since Caling's representation didn't divest him of his capacity as
counsel for MacArthur.
IN RE ALMACEN G.R. NO. L-27654 (IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN VS.
VIRGINIA YAPTINCHAY)
Topics: Practice of law is a privilege which cannot be taken away by anyone or anything except
through unlawful grounds. / Limitation of lawyer’s duty to clients. / Winning or losing a case is a
fact in a lawyer’s job. His prime duty is the speedy administration of justice.
Facts of the Case:
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in a civil case but
Almacen filed for a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but
failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion.
He appealed to the Court of Appeals but motion was denied. He filed an appeal on certiorari before
the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
Atty. Almacen called such minute resolution as unconstitutional. He filed before the Supreme Court
a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate as he claimed that it was useless to continue practicing
his profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who
ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the
Constitution with impunity.
He argues that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120,000.00 without knowing
the reasons why and that his client became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy”.
He also contends that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not
only blind, but also deaf and dumb. The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition
as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to actually surrender his certificate. Almacen, however, did
not surrender his lawyer’s certificate though he now argues that he chose not to.
Issue:
Does Almacen deserve disciplinary action?
Court Ruling:
YES. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the Supreme
Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they reject. The Supreme Court
must decide “only on cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance
beyond the particular facts and parties involved”.
The Supreme Court regarded Almacen’s criticisms as uncalled for. His right to criticize the decision of
the courts has always been encouraged, but it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the wall of
decency and propriety.

JOSE M. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SABINO PADILLA, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
JOSE M. CASTILLO FOR COMPLAINANT.
ANSELMO M. CARLOS FOR RESPONDENT.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; ATTORNEYS; DUTIES. — Among the duties of an attorney are: (1)
to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Canons of Professional Ethics
likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; USE OF INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE UNCALLED FOR IN THE CASE
AT BAR; PENALTY. — Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering
evidence, the remark "bobo" or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no
right to interrupt complainant which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In
so doing, he exhibited lack of respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the use of
intemperate language, respondent failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member
of the legal profession, which all the more deserves reproach because this is not the first time that
respondent has employed offensive language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously
been admonished to refrain from engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more
circumspect in the preparation of his pleadings. Respondent is hereby reprimanded for his
misbehavior. He is directed to observe proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of
the offense will be dealt with more severely.
RESOLUTION
PLANA, J p:
Atty. Jose M. Castillo, complainant, seeks the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for
the use of insulting language in the course of judicial proceedings. prcd
As the material facts are not in dispute, we have deemed the case submitted for resolution on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties.
Complainant was the counsel for the defendants (and at the same time, one of the defendants)
in Criminal Case No. 13331 for forcible entry before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan.
Respondent was counsel for the plaintiff. At the hearing of the case on November 19, 1981, while
complainant was formally offering his evidence, he heard respondent say "bobo". When complainant
turned toward respondent, he saw the latter looking at him (complainant) menacingly. Embarrassed
and humiliated in the presence of many people, complainant was unable to proceed with his offer of
evidence. The court proceedings had to be suspended.
While admitting the utterance, respondent denied having directed the same at the complainant,
claiming that what he said was "Ay, que bobo", referring to "the manner complainant was trying to
inject wholly irrelevant and highly offensive matters into the record" while in the process of making an
offer of evidence. The statement of Atty. Castillo referred to by respondent was:
". . . The only reason why Atty. Jose Castillo was included in the present complaint for
ejectment was because defendant Erlinda Castillo wife of this representation called up this
representation at his house and crying over the phone, claiming that Atty. Sabino Padilla was harassing
her and immediately, this representation like any good husband would do in the defense of his wife
immediately went to the school and confronted Atty. Sabino Padilla, Jr. with a talk and asked for a yes
or no answer if he harassed the wife of this representation and if yes, right then and there l would sock
his face."
Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts
of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged. (Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec. 20 (b) and (f). The Canons of Professional Ethics likewise
exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel. (Canon 17.)
Whether directed at the person of complainant or his manner of offering evidence, the remark "bobo"
or "Ay, que bobo" was offensive and uncalled for. Respondent had no right to interrupt complainant
which such cutting remark while the latter was addressing the court. In so doing, he exhibited lack of
respect not only to a fellow lawyer but also to the court. By the use of intemperate language, respondent
failed to measure up to the norm of conduct required of a member of the legal profession, which all
the more deserves reproach because this is not the first time that respondent has employed offensive
language in the course of judicial proceedings. He has previously been admonished to refrain from
engaging in offensive personalities and warned to be more circumspect in the preparation of his
pleadings. (CA-G.R. No. 09753-SP, Court of Appeals; Civil Case No. C-7790 CFI of Caloocan.)
The Court, however, notes that in the case at bar, respondent's actuation was triggered by complainant's
own manifest hostility and provocative remarks. Complainant is therefore not entirely free from blame
when respondent unleashed his irritation through the use of improper words.
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby reprimanded for his misbehavior. He is directed to observe
proper decorum and restraint and warned that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more
severely. LLjur