Criticisms against the courts and judges
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2019-2020
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND
TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the
Courts.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
the case.
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN FROM ANY
IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE
COURT.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.
Duty of Lawyers
As part of the machinery for the administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to the fore irregular and
questionable practices of those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial machinery. Thus, if he acquired
reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated by judicial officers, it is incumbent upon him to report the matter
to the Court so that it may be properly acted upon. An omission or even a delay in reporting may tend to erode the
dignity of, and the public’s trust in, the judicial system. – Fudot v. Cattleyla Land, Inc., G.R. No. 171008 October
24, 2008
Requirements when raising grievances against judges
The Court is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the
proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.
- In re: Atty. Bagabuyo A.C. No. 7006 [2007]
A scurrilous attack
We recall his use of the following words and phrases: abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake,
horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process. – Judge Lacurom v.
Atty. Jacoba, A.C. No. 5921, March 10, 2006
Offensive language
They unfairly called the Court of Appeals a “court of technicalities” for validly dismissing their defectively
prepared petition.
They also accused the Court of Appeals of protecting, in their view, “an incompetent judge.”
The Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the case shows its“impatience and readiness to punish petitioners for a
perceived slight on its dignity” and such dismissal“smacks of retaliation and does not augur for the cold
neutrality and impartiality demanded of the appellate court.” - Asean Pacific Planners et. al. v. City of
Urdaneta et. al., G.R. No. 162525 [2008]
Intemperate language
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 1 of 6
• His characterization of the decision of the respondent Judge as having been "crafted in order to fool the
winning party"; as a "hypocritical judgment in plaintiffs' favor"; one "you could have sworn it was the
Devil who dictated it"; or one with "perfidious character," although the petitioners as plaintiffs therein and
who were the prevailing party in the decision did not appeal therefrom; and by his charge that the respondent
Judge was "a bit confused — with that confusion which is the natural product of having been born,
nurtured and brought up amongst the crowded surroundings of the non-propertied class. - Sps.
Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995
Foul language
The loathsome epithets hurled by the complainant against the respondent justices, e.g., "Crooks in Robe,"
"Swindlers in Robe," "corrupt justices who were only sowing ‘judicial terrorism,’" as well as his vilification of
the Chief Justice whom he called "Chief-Swindler-in-Robe," go beyond the bounds of acceptable behavior. –
Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justices, A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9, 2005
Proscribed language
• Proscribed then are, inter alia:
1. the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes
distrust in judicial administration or
2. tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the members of this
Court and to degrade the administration of justice by this Court of offensive and abusive language or
3. abrasive and offensive language or
4. of disrespectful, offensive, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or in a letter
addressed to the judge or
5. of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for remarks.
- Sps. Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, G.R. No. 115932 January 25, 1995
Not disrespectful, abusive or slanderous
We cannot say that the use of the adjective "insufficiently-informed" is disrespectful, abusive or slanderous. –
Francisco, Jr. v. UEM-MARA Phil. Corp., et. al., G.R. Nos. 135688-89, October 18, 2007
Constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity
“A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be
held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.” - Article VI,
Section 11 of the Constitution
Purpose of parliamentary immunity
Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative
assembly of the democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose “is to enable and encourage a
representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success” for “it is indispensably necessary
that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of every one,
however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offense.”
Defensor-Santiago case
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s speech delivered on the Senate floor:
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this
nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme
Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather
be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
- Pobre v. Sen. Defensor-Santiago A.C. No. 7399 [2009]
The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in governance
with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed “to be an unjust
act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC],” which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be
vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices of the
Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least given an advanced
advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice.
No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts should be allowed to erode the
people’s faith in the judiciary. In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide:
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 2 of 6
Canon 8, Rule 8.01.––A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.
Canon 11.––A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should
insist on similar conduct by others.
Case against Sen. Defensor-Santiago dismissed
• Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of
Court.
• In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
• WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is,
conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED.
Statements of an accused lawyer
• Ed J. Polk was arrested and jailed and his bond revoked because of his failure to appear for a criminal trial
wherein he was charged as a defendant with driving while intoxicated. Upon his release from jail Polk issued
to the news media from his law office the following written statement:
I consider this one more awkward attempt by a dishonest and unethical district attorney and a perverse
judge to assure me an unfair trial.
Questionable conduct on the part of those charged with administration of justice does little to foster
respect for the law. - Polk v. State Bar of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]
Statements were made as a citizen
The critical statements made by Polk were remarks in response to the manner in which he was treated as a
citizen and not as an attorney. At no time was Polk an attorney of record or in any way acting in his capacity as
an attorney in the criminal proceedings against him, nor do the remarks purport to be made in his capacity as an
attorney. - Polk v. State Bar of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]
There is no dichotomy of a lawyer’s personality
There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere
citizen at another. – Cojuangco, Jr. v. Atty. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474, September 15, 2004
Violation of Rule 11.03, Canon 11
Judge claimed that on July 24, 2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of Civil Case No. 2502,
the respondent was shouting while arguing his motion. Judge advised him to tone down his voice but instead, the
respondent shouted at the top of his voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct contempt, the
respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”. Judge cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of P100.00. The
respondent then left.
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you! Judge ordered the sheriff to escort the respondent out of the
courtroom and cited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.
Con’t…
A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom completely disregards the latter’s role, stature and position in our
justice system. When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a
case for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the respondent effectively acted in a manner tending to
erode the public confidence in Judge Baculi’s competence and in his ability to decide cases. Incompetence is a
matter that, even if true, must be handled with sensitivity in the manner provided under the Rules of Court; an
objecting or complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice
system into disrepute. – Judge Baculi v. Atty. Battung, A.C. no. 8920, September 28, 2011
Intention and disclaimer not a defense
Atty. Abila's central theme in his written explanation is that he acted in good faith and was merely motivated by his
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 3 of 6
duty to defend the interest of his client. His disclaimer of any intentional disrespect is not a ground for
exoneration. His intent must be determined by a fair interpretation of the language employed by him. He cannot
escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them to mean.
– Borromeo v. CA, G.R. No. L-39253 November 24, 1978
Making threats
In addition, he likewise committed a violation of Canon 11 of Rule 11.03 by threatening respondent judge that if
his motions were not granted, respondent judge would be administratively charged. To be sure, the threat made
against respondent judge was not a threat to do him bodily harm. Nonetheless, it was a threat. Needless to say,
disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive personalities, unfounded accusations, or intemperate words
tending to obstruct, embarrass, or influence the court in administering justice or to bring it into disrepute have no
place in a pleading. – Prosecutor Tolentino v. Judge Cabral, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1528, March 28, 2000
Threat of Impeachment
• It is reprehensible for the complainant to threaten the members of the Court with impeachment. To threaten a
judge or justice with investigation and prosecution for official acts done by him in the regular exercise of
official duty subverts and undermines the independence of the judiciary.
- Complaint of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda against Justices, A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9, 2005
Offensive language against complainant proscribed
Moreover, the records show that respondent used offensive language in his pleadings in describing complainant
and her relatives. A lawyer’s language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an
advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. The lawyer’s arguments whether written or oral
should be gracious to both court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly addressed by
one gentlemen to another. By calling complainant, a "sly manipulator of truth" as well as a "vindictive congenital
prevaricator", hardly measures to the sobriety of speech demanded of a lawyer. – N.H. Florido v. Atty. Florido,
A.C. No. 5624, January 20, 2004
Statements in form of questions still proscribed
While most of her statements were in the form of questions instead of categorical assertions, the effect is still
the same: they constitute a stinging affront to the honor and dignity of the Court and tend to undermine the
confidence of the public in the integrity of the highest tribunal of the land.
She posed the query, "Nasaan ang katarungan? (Where is justice?)," implying that this Court failed to dispense
justice in her case. - Bildner and Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, et. al., G.R. No. 157384, June 5, 2009
Direct contempt if submitted in the same court
In Ang vs. Castro, this Court held that if a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious statements is
submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt, equivalent as
it is to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration
of justice. Direct contempt is punishable summarily. - Re: Letter dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda,
A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC. July 22, 2005]
Post litigation criticisms
The Philippine rule, therefore, is that in case of a post-litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism of the court, its
proceedings and its members, are allowed. However, there may be a contempt of court, even though the case has
been terminated, if the publication is attended by either of these two circumstances: (1) where it tends to bring the
court into disrespect or, in other words, to scandalize the court; or (2) where there is a clear and present danger that
the administration of justice would be impeded. – PP v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09 March 29, 1995
Contempt and Disciplinary proceeding are not the same
A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in court is designed to vindicate the authority of the court; on the other
hand, the object of a disciplinary proceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court's officer to continue in that
office, to preserve and protect the court and the public from the official ministrations of persons unfit or
unworthy to hold such office.
The principal purpose of the exercise of the power to cite for contempt is to safeguard the functions of the court
and should thus be used sparingly on a preservative and not, on the vindictive principle. The principal purpose of the
exercise of disciplinary authority by the Supreme Court is to assure respect for orders of such court by
attorneys who, as much as judges, are responsible for the orderly administration of justice.
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 4 of 6
Con’t…
Moreover, it has been held that the imposition a fine as a penalty in a contempt proceeding is not considered res
judicata to a subsequent charge for unprofessional conduct. In the same manner an attorney's conviction for
contempt was not collaterally estopped by reason of a subsequent disbarment proceeding in which the court
found in his favor on essentially the same facts leading to conviction. It has likewise been the rule that a notice to a
lawyer to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt cannot be considered as a notice to show
cause why he should not be suspended from the practice of law, considering that they have distinct objects and
for each of them a different procedure is established. Contempt of court is governed by the procedures laid down
under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, whereas disciplinary actions in the Practice of law are governed by file
138 and 139 thereof. - PP v. Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09 March 29, 1995
The test of allowable criticisms of a judge’s decision
Whether or not the criticism is bona fide or done in good faith, and does not spill over the walls of decency and
propriety. – Lorenzo Shipping Corp., et. al. v. Distribution Management Association of the Philippines, et. al., G.R.
No. 155849, August 31, 2011
Degree of lawyers’ remark or comment
Undoubtedly, lawyers should be allowed some latitude of remark or comment in the furtherance of causes they
uphold. For the felicity of their clients they may be pardoned some infelicities of phrase. – In re: Complaint against
Atty. Pilar, A.C. No. 263, October 28, 1958
Is the judiciary onion-skinned?
“The assumption that respect for the judiciary can be won by shielding judges from published criticism wrongly
appraises the character of …. public opinion. For it is a prized …. privilege to speak one's mind, although not always
with perfect good taste, on all public institutions. And an enforced silence, however limited, solely in the name of
preserving the dignity of the bench, would probably engender resentment, suspicion, and contempt much more than
it would enhance respect.” – Dissenting opinion, Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270-271 (1941)
Admonition to judges
• More than once in the past, we had occasion to admonish judges not to be onion-skinned when confronted by
dissatisfied lawyers or litigants. Their power to punish for contempt is not a bludgeon to be used for the
purpose of exacting silent submission to their rulings and orders however questionable or unjust they may
be. - Sesbreño v. Judge Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-272 February 6, 1990
Free speech in democratic government
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the
expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.“ - Texas v Johnson, 491
U.S. 397, 414 (1989)
Limited freedom of expression?
“It cannot be seriously asserted that a private citizen surrenders his right to freedom of expression when he becomes
a licensed attorney in this state. The Supreme Court has built a substantial line of cases where the Constitution has
been read to limit and restrain the state's power to prescribe standards of conduct for attorneys.” - Polk v. State Bar
of Texas 374 F. Supp. 784 [1974]
Duty to defend judges and justices
Indeed, it is the attorneys duty as an officer of the court to defend a judge from unfounded criticism or
groundless personal attack. This requires of him not only to refrain from subjecting the judge to wild and
groundless accusation but also to discourage other people from so doing and to come to his defense when he is
so subjected. By the very nature of his position a judge lacks the power, outside of his court, to defend himself
against unfounded criticism and clamor and it is the attorney, and no other, who can better or more appropriately
support the judiciary and the incumbents of the judicial positions. – Johnny Ng v. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Adm. Case
No. 7252, November 22, 2006
No special privilege for labor practitioners
Respondents argument that labor practitioners are entitled to some latitude of righteous anger is unavailing. –
Johnny Ng v. Atty. Benjamin C. Alar, Adm. Case No. 7252, November 22, 2006
Thank you for your attention!!
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 5 of 6
1
https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/file/PALE%20-%20Criticisms%20ag…PwPRyqjaYbAJv73rKO-aLrb2JkIPy7tmRylvNR-cNNqGYGJx3rar7k 11/7/19, 6:55 PM
Page 6 of 6
